`Filed: January 10, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————
`
`ZTE (USA), INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`(record) Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`—————————————
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2018-01257
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 2
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Each of the Factors Weighs in Favor of the Board
`Granting the Motion for Joinder............................................................ 4
`Joinder with the Google IPR Is Appropriate ......................................... 5
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability ...................................................................................... 6
`No Impact on the Google IPR Trial Schedule ...................................... 6
`3.
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery ................................... 7
`4.
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`1.
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) ........................................................... 4
`HTC v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC.,
`IPR2017-00512, Paper No. 12 (June 1, 2017) ...................................................... 1
`LG v. Memory Integrity, LLC.,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 (Oct. 5, 2015) .......................................... 4, 6, 7, 9
`Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 (Apr. 10, 2015) .................................................... 8
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2016-01023, Paper No. 20 (Oct. 27, 2016) .................................................... 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper No. 12 (Aug. 24, 2016) ................................................... 5
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2018-01383, Paper No. 17 (Nov. 19, 2018) ................................................... 4
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................ 1, 3
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ............................................................................................... 1, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 ....................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`I. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`ZTE (USA), Inc. (“Petitioner” or “ZTE”) respectfully submits this Motion for
`
`Joinder, concurrently with a Petition (“the ZTE petition”) for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 (“the ’978 patent”) filed herewith.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), ZTE
`
`requests institution of an inter partes review and joinder with Google LLC v. Cywee
`
`Group Ltd., IPR2018-01257 (“the Google IPR”), which the Board instituted on
`
`December 11, 2018, concerning the same claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 patent at issue
`
`in the ZTE petition. This request is being submitted within the time set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`ZTE’s request for joinder is consistent with the policy surrounding inter
`
`partes reviews, as it is the most expedient way to “to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also HTC
`
`v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC., IPR2017-00512, Paper No. 12 at
`
`5-6 (June 1, 2017). The ZTE petition and the Google IPR are substantively identical;
`
`they contain the same grounds (based on the same prior art combinations and
`
`supporting evidence) against the same claims. (See Ex. 1050, illustrating changes
`
`between the instant petition and the petition in IPR2018-01257.) Further, upon
`
`joining the Google IPR, ZTE will act as an “understudy” and will not assume an
`
`active role unless the current petitioner ceases to actively participate in the instituted
`
`1
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`IPR. Accordingly, the proposed joinder will neither unduly complicate the Google
`
`IPR nor delay its schedule. As such, the joinder will promote judicial efficiency in
`
`determining the patentability of the ’978 patent without prejudice to Patent Owner.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`The ’978 Patent has been at issue in one infringement action against
`
`ZTE: CyWee Group Ltd. v. ZTE (USA), 17-cv-02130 (S.D. Cal.). The
`
`parties in that action recently filed claim construction briefs and the
`
`court has not yet set a trial date.
`
`2.
`
`The ’978 Patent is also at issue in seven other patent infringement
`
`actions: (1) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 18-cv-00571 (D. Del.);
`
`(2) CyWee Group Ltd. v. HTC Corporation et al., 17-cv-00932 (W.D.
`
`Wash.); (3) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 17-cv-00780
`
`(D. Del.); (4) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Inc. et
`
`al., 17-cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.); (5) CyWee Group Ltd. v. LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. et al., 17-cv-01102 (S.D. Cal.); (6) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., 17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex.); and (7) CyWee
`
`Group Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 14-cv-01853 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`3.
`
`On June 14, 2018, Google LLC. filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2018-1257) (“the Google petition”) requesting cancellation of
`
`claims 10 and 12 of the ʼ978 patent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`
`4.
`
`On December 11, 2018 the Board instituted the Google petition for
`
`inter partes review as to all challenged claims and all grounds.
`
`5.
`
`The ZTE petition and the Google petition are substantively identical;
`
`they contain the same grounds (based on the same prior art
`
`combinations and supporting evidence) against the same claims. Both
`
`petitions rely upon the declaration of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`dated June 13, 2018. Ex. 1002 (in both cases).
`
`6. On January 8, 2019, Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (“Samsung”)
`
`filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2019-00534) (“the Samsung
`
`petition”) requesting cancellation of claims 10 and 12 of the ʼ978 patent
`
`and seeking joinder with the Google petition. In the motion for joinder
`
`accompanying the Samsung petition, Samsung indicates that its petition
`
`and the Google petition are “substantially identical,” and that they have
`
`“the same grounds (based on the same prior art combinations and
`
`supporting evidence) against the same claims.” (IPR2019-00534, paper
`
`no. 3.)
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standard
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the Board may grant a motion for joining an
`
`inter partes review petition with another inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`3
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). The Board, in determining whether to exercise its discretion to
`
`grant joinder, considers whether the joinder motion: (1) sets forth the reasons why
`
`joinder is appropriate; (2) identifies any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in
`
`the petition; (3) explains what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) addresses specifically how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified. See Frequently Asked Question (“FAQ”) H5,
`
`available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp (last visited Jan. 3, 2019);
`
`see also Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper No.
`
`17 at 3 (July 29, 2013).
`
`B.
`
`Each of the Factors Weighs in Favor of the Board Granting
`the Motion for Joinder
`All four factors weigh in favor of granting the motion for Petitioner. The ZTE
`
`petition is substantively identical to the Google petition. ZTE does not present any
`
`new grounds of unpatentability. Additionally, as all substantive issues are identical
`
`and ZTE will act as an “understudy,” joinder should have no impact on the pending
`
`schedule of the Google IPR. See LG v. Memory Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353,
`
`Paper No. 11 at 6 (Oct. 5, 2015) (granting motion for joinder where petitioners
`
`requested an “understudy” role); see also Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-01383, Paper No. 17 at 4-5 (Nov. 19, 2018) (granting
`
`motion for joinder). Moreover, the briefing and discovery will be simplified by
`
`4
`
`
`
`resolving all issues in a single proceeding. Accordingly, joinder is appropriate.
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`
`Joinder with the Google IPR Is Appropriate
`1.
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper No.
`
`12 at 9 (Aug. 24, 2016) (emphasis in original) (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted). Here, joinder with the Google IPR is appropriate because the ZTE petition
`
`submits identical arguments and the same grounds introduced in the existing Google
`
`IPR. More specifically, the ZTE petition copies verbatim the challenges set forth in
`
`the Google petition and relies on the same evidence, including the same expert
`
`declaration, Professor Sarrafzadeh’s declaration, dated June 13, 2018. Ex. 1002 (in
`
`both cases). The only differences between the ZTE petition and the Google petition
`
`relate to formalities of a different party filing the petition and the disclosure of a
`
`recent claim construction order in Cywee v. Motorola, 17-cv-00780 (Ex. 1051),
`
`which does not construe any claim terms construed in the ZTE/Google Petitions;
`
`there are no other changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments introduced
`
`in the Google petition. Because these proceedings are virtually identical, good cause
`
`exists for joining this proceeding with the Google IPR so that the Board, consistent
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can efficiently “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution” of the ZTE petition and the Google petition in a single proceeding.
`
`5
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`Moreover, granting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or the current
`
`petitioner. As discussed above, the ZTE petition does not raise any new ground that
`
`is not raised in the Google petition. Therefore, there should be little or no additional
`
`cost to Patent Owner or current petitioner due to ZTE’s joinder.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability
`As discussed in the prior section, the ZTE petition is substantively identical
`
`to the petition in the Google IPR; no new grounds of patentability will be added to
`
`the Google IPR as a result of the Board allowing joinder. See LG, IPR2015-01353,
`
`Paper No. 11 at 6 (granting institution of IPR and motion for joinder where
`
`petitioners relied “on the same prior art, same arguments, and same evidence,
`
`including the same expert and a substantively identical declaration”); see also Par
`
`Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2016-01023, Paper No. 20 at 14 (Oct. 27, 2016)
`
`(granting motion for joinder where petitioners “do not assert any new ground of
`
`unpatentability that is not already being considered in [an instituted IPR
`
`proceeding], rely on the same arguments and evidence, and do not require any
`
`modification to the existing schedule”).
`
`No Impact on the Google IPR Trial Schedule
`3.
`Joinder should have no impact on the Google IPR trial schedule because the
`
`ZTE petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability. See LG,
`
`6
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6 (granting IPR and motion for joinder where
`
`“joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from Patent
`
`Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR]”). There are no new issues
`
`for the Board to address, and Patent Owner will not be required to present any
`
`additional responses or arguments.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response should also not be impacted because the issues
`
`presented in the ZTE petition are identical to the issues presented in the Google
`
`petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional analysis or
`
`arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the Google petition.
`
`Also, because the ZTE petition relies on the same expert and the same declaration,
`
`no additional deposition is needed for the proposed joined proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder with the Google IPR does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule.
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`4.
`ZTE agrees to take an “understudy” role which will simplify briefing and
`
`discovery. Specifically, ZTE agrees, upon joining the Google IPR, that the
`
`following conditions, as previously approved by the Board in similar circumstances,
`
`shall apply so long as the current petitioner remains an active party:
`
`a) all filings by ZTE in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the
`
`filings of the current petitioner, unless a filing concerns issues solely
`
`7
`
`
`
`involving ZTE;
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`
`b) ZTE shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board in the Google IPR, or introduce any argument
`
`or discovery not already introduced by the current petitioner;
`
`c) ZTE shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and the
`
`current petitioner concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`d) ZTE at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross examination or
`
`redirect time beyond that permitted under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or
`
`any agreement between Patent Owner and the current petitioner. See
`
`Noven Pharms., Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 at
`
`5 (Apr. 10, 2015).
`
`In short, ZTE agrees to not materially participate in the joined proceedings unless
`
`and until the current petitioner is dismissed from the joined proceedings or elects to
`
`transfer control to ZTE, as may occur in the event of settlement or advanced
`
`settlement negotiations.
`
`Thus, by ZTE accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and the current
`
`petitioner can comply with the existing trial schedule without needing any
`
`duplicative efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner. These steps will minimize any
`
`potential complications or delay that potentially may result by joinder. See LG,
`
`IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6-7 (granting IPR and motion for joinder because
`
`8
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`“joinder would increase efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and discovery,
`
`and would reduce costs and burdens on the parties as well as the Board” where
`
`petitioners agreed to an “understudy” role). ZTE is further willing to agree to any
`
`other reasonable conditions the Board deems necessary.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the factors discussed above, ZTE respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant the ZTE petition and grant joinder with the Google IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` January 10, 2019
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`
`
` / James R. Sobieraj/
`
` James R. Sobieraj
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I certify that, on January 10, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Motion for Joinder to Inter Partes Review IPR2018-01257 to be served
`
`via express mail on the Patent Owner at the following correspondence address of
`
`record as listed on PAIR:
`
`DING YU TAN
`8819 Purdy Crescent Trail
`Richmond, TX 77406
`
`A courtesy copy was also sent via electronic mail to the Patent Owner’s
`
`litigation counsel listed below in the following matters CyWee Group Ltd. v. ZTE
`
`(USA), 17-cv-02130 (S.D. Cal.); CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 18-cv-00571
`
`(D. Del.); CyWee Group Ltd. v. HTC Corporation et al., 17-cv-00932 (W.D. Wash.);
`
`CyWee Group Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 17-cv-00780 (D. Del.); CyWee Group
`
`Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Inc. et al., 17-cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.); CyWee Group
`
`Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., 17-cv-01102 (S.D. Cal.); CyWee Group Ltd. v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., 17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex.); and CyWee Group
`
`Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 14-cv-01853 (N.D. Cal.):
`
`Alfonso Garcia Chan (achan@shorechan.com)
`Ari Benjamin Rafilson (arafilson@shorechan.com)
`Christopher L Evans (cevans@shorechan.com)
`Michael Wayne Shore (mshore@shorechan.com)
`Stamatios Stamoulis (stamoulis@swdelaw.com)
`Richard Charles Weinblatt (weinblatt@swdelaw.com)
`
`A courtesy copy of the motion was also served electronically upon counsel
`
`10
`
`
`
`of record for Patent Owner and Petitioner, respectively, in Google LLC v. Cywee
`
`ZTE’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2018-01257
`
`
`Group Ltd., IPR2018-01257 at the following addresses:
`
`Jay P. Kesan
`DIMURO GINSBERG PC-DGKEYIP GROUP
`1750 Tysons Boulevard
`Suite 1500
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`jkesan@dimuro.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Andrew S. Baluch
`Christopher M. Colice
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`110 Alma St., Ste 109
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`
`
` / James R. Sobieraj/
`
`
` James R. Sobieraj
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
` January 10, 2019
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`