`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IXI IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00124
`Patent 7,039,033
`______________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,033 to Haller et al. (“’033
`patent”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’033 patent
`
`EXHIBIT 1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei
`
`EXHIBIT 1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei
`
`EXHIBIT 1005
`
`International Publication No. WO 2001/76154 A2 to
`Marchand (“Marchand”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/541,529 to Marchand
`(“Marchand Priority”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1007
`
`Handley et al., Request For Comments 2543 SIP:
`Session Initiation Protocol, The Internet Society, March,
`1999 (“RFC 2543”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,474 to Larsson (“Larsson”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1009
`
`K. Arnold et al., The JINITM Specification, Addison-
`Wesley, June 1, 1999 (“JINI Spec.”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,560,642 to Nurmann (“Nurmann”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,635 to Vilander (“Vilander”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1012
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0068608
`to Souissi (“Souissi”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,486,832 to Abramov, et al.
`(“Abramov”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,193,965 to Nevo, et al. (“Nevo”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,556,222 to Chandrasekhar
`Narayanaswami (“Narayanaswami”)
`
`i
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`EXHIBIT 1016
`
`International Publication No. WO 1999/22338 to
`Williams (“Williams”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,155,163 to Cannon (“Cannon”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`EXHIBIT 1019
`
`EXHIBIT 1020
`
`802.11b, “Supplement to IEEE Standard for Information
`Technology – Telecommunications and In-formation
`Exchange Between Systems – Local and Metropolitan
`Area Networks – Specific Requirements. Part 11:
`Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
`Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications: Higher-Speed
`Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band,” Print
`ISBN 0738118117, published January 20, 2000
`(“802.11b”)
`
`IEEE 802.11, “IEEE Standard for Information
`Technology—Telecommunications and Information
`Exchange Between Systems—Local and Metropolitan
`Area Networks—Specific requirements. Part 11:
`Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
`Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications,” ISBN 0-7381-
`1658-0, published August 20, 1999 (“802.11”)
`
`A COLLECTION OF JINI TECHNOLOGY HELPER
`UTILITIES AND SERVICES SPECIFICATIONS
`(“JINI Collection”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,465,401 to Thompson (“Thompson”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1022
`
`GSM Phase 2+ General Packet Radio Service GPRS:
`Architecture, Protocols, and Air Interface (“Bettstetter”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino (“Provino”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,028,848 to Bhatia (“Bhatia”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,611 to Waldo, et al. (“Waldo”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1026
`
`Bluetooth Specification, Version 1.0B (“Bluetooth
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`Spec.”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027
`
`IPR2015-01443, Petition
`
`EXHIBIT 1028
`
`IPR2015-01444, Petition
`
`EXHIBIT 1029
`
`IPR2015-01443, Final Written Decision
`
`EXHIBIT 1030
`
`IPR2015-01444, Final Written Decision
`
`EXHIBIT 1031
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei submitted in IPR2015-
`01444
`
`EXHIBIT 1032
`
`Prosecution History of Reexamination Control No.
`90/013,925
`
`EXHIBIT 1033
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036 to Heikkinen et al.
`(“Heikkinen”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1034
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,422,656 to Allard et al. (“Allard”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1035
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,801,778 to Koorapaty et al.
`(“Koorapaty”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1036
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,786,789 to Janky (“Janky”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,404,761 to Snelling et al. (“Snelling”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1038
`
`“Router Plugins: A Software Architecture for Next
`Generation Routers,” Computer Communication
`Review (1998), vol. 28, No. 4, p. 229-240 (“Router
`Plugins”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1039
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,891,820 to Pham, et al. (“Pham”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1040
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,258 to van Valkenburg, et al.
`(“van Valkenburg”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1041
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,463,304 to Smethers (“Smethers”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1042
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,983,310 to Rouse et al. (“Rouse”)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`EXHIBIT 1043
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,138,022 to Strawczynski et al.
`(“Strawczynski”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1044
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,754,833 to Black et al. (“Black”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1045
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,916 to Weisshaar et al.
`(“Weisshaar”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1046
`
`J. Newmarch, A Programmer’s Guide to Jini
`Technology, Apress, 2000 (“Newmarch”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1047
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,323 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1048
`
`HIGHLY INTEGRATED SINGLE-CHIP
`BASEBAND PROCESSOR FOR GSM HANDSETS
`(“Shohara”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1049
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,970,940 to Vogel et al. (“Vogel”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1050
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,622,017 to Hoffman (“Hoffman”)
`
`EXHIBIT 1051
`
`Email String Granting IXI’s Request to Extend the Due
`Date for IXI’s Opposition of Apple’s Joinder Motion
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple has, at every turn, brought legitimate challenges to the claims of the
`
`’033 patent in as timely a manner as it could have given the unusual circumstances
`
`of this case. Apple diligently pursued IPR of the ’033 patent—filing its original
`
`petition for IPR well before the original statutory deadline—and Apple diligently
`
`filed its present petition and request for joinder just weeks after the Board regained
`
`jurisdiction over the original IPR and within ten months of those claims issuing.
`
`Yet, IXI now claims that Apple should not be able to challenge the new claims
`
`because Apple didn’t challenge the claims earlier (when they did not yet exist).
`
`The Board should not reward IXI’s gamesmanship. IXI circumvented
`
`Apple’s original challenge through seeking claims in another proceeding, and now
`
`seeks to circumvent a real, adversarial challenge to those claims before the Office
`
`by claiming that the challenge is untimely. The fault, though, for the timing of
`
`Apple’s present petition lies entirely with IXI. IXI should not benefit from its own
`
`delay and gamesmanship, and joinder should be granted.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`Joinder of the present proceeding to Apple’s previous petition is warranted
`
`as either joinder under § 315(c) or under § 315(d). As noted in Apple’s motion,
`
`each of the factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder: the claims
`
`challenged in Apple’s current petition have significant overlap with the prior IPR,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`the prior art involved is the same and/or very similar, and allowing joinder would
`
`have no impact on the Board’s ability to meet the statutory deadline as the Board
`
`has already issued a Final Written Decision. IXI does not dispute that each of
`
`these factors weighs in favor of joinder. Instead, IXI argues that Apple’s petition
`
`and motion for joinder are untimely because, according to IXI, the Federal
`
`Circuit’s mandate and/or the PTO IPR certificate ended the original IPR; and (in
`
`the case of § 315(d)) Apple’s petition is barred by § 315(b). None of IXI’s
`
`timeliness arguments have merit under the circumstances.
`
`A. Neither the Federal Circuit’s Mandate Nor the IPR Certificate
`Stand in the Way of Joinder
`
`First, IXI argues that joinder and/or consolidation is inappropriate because,
`
`according to IXI, Apple’s original IPR is no longer pending. See Resp., at 3-9; 12-
`
`14. In particular, IXI argues Apple’s request for joinder should be denied because
`
`the Federal Circuit’s mandate precludes further proceedings before the Board and
`
`the PTO issued a certificate cancelling the claims challenged in Apple’s first IPR
`
`after the Federal Circuit’s mandate prior to the Board’s consideration of this
`
`motion. See id. IXI is wrong on both counts.
`
`As to the Federal Circuit’s mandate, IXI misapprehends the mandate rule.
`
`Contrary to IXI’s assertion that issuance of the mandate precludes any further
`
`litigation in the IPR, the mandate rule precludes further litigation regarding “[o]nly
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`the issues actually decided—those within the scope of the judgment appealed from,
`
`minus those explicitly reserved or remanded by the court.” Engel Indus., Inc. v.
`
`Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Moreover, “every
`
`appellate court judgment vests jurisdiction in the district court to carry out some
`
`further proceedings.” Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 137 F.3d 1475,
`
`1483 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Frequently...the disposition of a case in the court of
`
`appeals will require the district court to undertake more significant proceedings,”
`
`even where the Federal Circuit’s appeal resulted in affirmance. Id. Here, there can
`
`be no question that the claims raised in the present petitions were not at issue in
`
`IXI’s appeal to the Federal Circuit; the mandate does not preclude joinder.
`
`As to the IPR certificate, Apple’s petition and request for joinder were filed
`
`well before the IPR certificate issued. The petition was filed back in early
`
`November of 2018, and the certificate did not issue until January of 2019. (See
`
`Paper 2); see also Ex. 2001. Notably, IXI requested an extension to respond to
`
`Apple’s motion for joinder. See Ex. 1051. Apple did not oppose a limited
`
`extension “under the assumption that the additional delay in briefing will not
`
`negatively impact the substance of the motion.” Id. Ultimately, the Board granted
`
`a two month extension, and, solely as a result of the extension, IXI’s response
`
`came after the IPR certificate issued and explicitly relies on that delay in arguing
`
`joinder should not be allowed. IXI should not benefit from its own delay.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`In any event, Apple’s petition and request for joinder should be considered
`
`as of the time it was filed because Apple seeks joinder with a proceeding to which
`
`it is a party. Contrary to IXI’s assertion, this difference is significant. All of the
`
`decisions cited by IXI involved attempts to join IPRs where the parties to the
`
`original IPR sought to terminate. Unlike in those cases, continuation of the
`
`proceeding is not contrary to the wishes of the party to the original IPR: Apple was
`
`a party to the original IPR and is actively seeking to keep that IPR active through
`
`its request for joinder. Just as a district court is free to amend or recall a judgment
`
`at the behest of a party, the Board should be free to continue review of the claims
`
`raised in Apple’s present IPR irrespective of whether the IPR certificate has issued
`
`because the claims challenged in Apple’s petition could not have been challenged
`
`previously. See FRCP 60(b) (a party may seek relief from a judgment because of
`
`newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered earlier).
`
`B. Apple’s Request for Joinder Is Not Time-Barred
`
`Although IXI acknowledges that the time-bar does not preclude joinder by
`
`the plain language of the statute, IXI argues that should the Board limit Apple’s
`
`request to be only under § 315(d) and thus time-barred. See Resp., at 10.
`
`Apple made a request under both § 315(c) and § 315(d). IXI’s argument’s
`
`only chance of succeeding relies on the Board finding that § 315(c) precludes
`
`same-party joinder – an issue which a POP is currently considering. However,
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`should the Board overrule same-party joinder, the Board must re-consider the
`
`application of the time-bar to requests for joinder under § 315(d). As noted by the
`
`expanded panel in Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., the IPR statute
`
`cannot be interpreted in a way that would “deprive the Board of any opportunity to
`
`use either [§ 315(c) or § 315(d) to move forward in circumstances where a
`
`petitioner in a prior inter partes proceeding seeks joinder of an issue to that
`
`proceeding, and may not bring a separate petition because of a § 315(b) bar.” See
`
`IPR2014-00508, Paper 28, 15 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015).
`
`C.
`
`IXI’s Other Arguments Are Frivolous
`
`IXI argues that Apple’s motion should be denied because Apple did not seek
`
`prior authorization to file it, but the PTO trial practice guide specifically exempts
`
`the requirement to seek authorization where “it is impractical for a party to seek
`
`prior Board authorization,” such as motions included with petitions. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48762 (Aug. 14, 2012). Moreover, the PTO’s rule that a motion for
`
`joinder must be made within one month of institution (37 C.F.R. 42.122) is not a
`
`statutory requirement, and may be waived by the Board pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.5(b)—which, given the unusual and difficult circumstances of this case, would
`
`be appropriate.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Apple’s motion for joinder and/or consolidation should be granted.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jeremy J. Monaldo/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`
` Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2019-00124
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0020IP1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) et seq. and 42.205(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on February 28, 2019, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder was
`
`provided via electronic service, to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence
`
`address of record as follows:
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Nathan Lowenstein
`Edward Hsieh, Parham Hendifar, Patrick Maloney
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`1880 Century Park East, Suite 815
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Russell D. Slifer
`SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER
`1600 TCF Tower, 121 S. 8th St.
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah, David S. Bir
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`
`Email: weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`IXI_IPRs@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`