`’978 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————
`
`
`ZTE (USA), INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`—————————————
`
`IPR2019-00525
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`—————————————
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2018-01257
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`JOINDER WOULD NOT PREJUDICE PATENT OWNER ......................... 1
`JOINDER WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIAL
`SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Joinder Will Not Introduce New Claim Construction
`Issues ..................................................................................................... 3
`Any Need For RPI Discovery Has No Bearing on Joinder................... 5
`B.
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Duodecad IT Services v. WAG Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2017-00785, Paper 12 (Apr. 13, 2017) ............................................................ 2
`Friendfinder Networks Inc., v. WAG Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2017-00784, Paper 12 (Mar. 31, 2017) ............................................................ 2
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2017-01797, Paper 8 (Feb. 6, 2018) ................................................................. 3
`Samsung v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2018-01383, Paper 9 (Nov. 19, 2018) .............................................................. 4
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC,
`IPR2018-00883, Paper 29 (Oct. 11, 2018) ............................................................. 5
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 3
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5 ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ZTE’s request for joinder is entirely appropriate and consistent with the
`
`Board’s well-settled joinder practice. ZTE has filed a copy-cat petition to join the
`
`already-instituted inter partes review IPR2018-01257 (“Google IPR”) against the
`
`same patent claims on the same unpatentability grounds using the same expert
`
`declaration. ZTE also has explicitly agreed to an “understudy” role.
`
`CyWee’s opposition lacks merit. First, CyWee’s alleged prejudice is
`
`speculation that borders on paranoia. Second, joinder will not impact the trial
`
`schedule because ZTE’s petition raises no new issues, and ZTE will act as an
`
`understudy, unless and until Google drops out. Also, ZTE’s joinder will not raise
`
`new claim construction issues because ZTE’s petition adopts the claim construction
`
`positions in Google’s petition, and the claim construction standard applicable to the
`
`Google proceeding (BRI) continues to apply even if Google departs and ZTE takes
`
`over. Finally, CyWee’s purported need for discovery regarding real parties-in-
`
`interest (“RPI”) is based on pure conjecture. It also is irrelevant to joinder because
`
`if CyWee has a plausible basis to take RPI discovery, it could do so now in the
`
`Google IPR. In short, CyWee offers no reasonable basis for denying joinder.
`
`II.
`
`JOINDER WOULD NOT PREJUDICE PATENT OWNER
`
`The Board has held that a patent owner is not prejudiced merely by a joinder.
`
`E.g., Duodecad IT Services v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2017-00785, Paper 12, at
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`7 (Apr. 13, 2017) (“Patent Owner’s arguments [regarding prejudice] are
`
`unpersuasive. Patent Owner will not be prejudiced. It is already defending the
`
`[underlying petitioner’s] IPR and there will be no schedule change or separate filings
`
`by Petitioner in the [underlying petitioner’s] IPR.”); see also Friendfinder Networks
`
`Inc., v. WAG Acquisition, LLC, IPR2017-00784, Paper 12, at 6 (Mar. 31, 2017).
`
`In this case, ZTE unequivocally committed to proceed in the Google IPR as
`
`an “understudy” (Motion at 1, 7, 8), ensuring that CyWee will not be prejudiced by
`
`ZTE’s joinder. CyWee does not allege that ZTE’s detailed limitations on its role are
`
`insufficient and does not propose additional conditions to minimize CyWee’s
`
`alleged prejudice. Rather, CyWee merely states that it is “unfathomable” that ZTE
`
`will honor its commitments. (Opp. at 4-5.)
`
`CyWee’s skepticism rests on unsupported and misplaced conspiracy theories.
`
`There is no evidence that ZTE, Google and others are “working together” as CyWee
`
`speculates. And even if that conspiracy theory was plausible, they could “work
`
`together” even if no one filed a joinder motion. More importantly, CyWee faces no
`
`prejudice from ZTE’s joinder because ZTE will act as an understudy or as Google’s
`
`replacement: it is one or the other, not both Google and ZTE that CyWee faces as
`
`the Petitioner.
`
`CyWee overstates that it faces a “deluge” of joinder petitions, which should
`
`be denied so the Board is not “overwhelmed.” The four petitioners seeking to join
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`the Google IPR each filed briefs that “contain nearly identical language with only
`
`minor modifications,” thereby streamlining issues for CyWee to address in its
`
`Oppositions.1 (Opp. at 5.) CyWee likewise will not be prejudiced if the joinder
`
`motions are granted, as CyWee will face the same grounds on the same prior art
`
`asserted in the Google IPR. (Opp. at 8 (conceding that “ZTE does not present any
`
`new grounds of unpatentability”).) Furthermore, CyWee cannot credibly complain
`
`of the prospect of facing multiple Petitioners when it is CyWee’s own litigation
`
`activity that prompted multiple Petitioners to challenge its patent. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Am., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2017-01797, Paper 8, at 33 (Feb. 6, 2018). The
`
`fact that CyWee has opposed every joinder petition shows that it does not want a
`
`single joinder granted; CyWee’s fixation on the number of joinder petitions is
`
`rhetorical hand-waving.
`
`III. JOINDER WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIAL SCHEDULE
`Joinder Will Not Introduce New Claim Construction Issues
`A.
`As discussed above, CyWee concedes that ZTE’s petition does not present
`
`any new grounds. Rather, the only alleged new issue is the (incorrect) assertion that
`
`
`1 ZTE independently drafted its joinder motion based on joinder motions that the
`
`Board granted in earlier cases. Presumably, other joinder movants did the same,
`
`which is an innocuous reason that their motions are so similar.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`ZTE’s petition will apply a different claim construction standard. (Opp. at 7.) While
`
`the claim construction standard has changed from BRI to Phillips for petitions filed
`
`after November 13, 2018, the BRI standard applies to ZTE’s Petition because ZTE
`
`is simply seeking joinder as a co-petitioner. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“join as a party
`
`to that inter partes review.”) (emphasis added). ZTE would be joined as a petitioner
`
`in IPR2018-01257 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. See, e.g., Samsung v. Uniloc 2017
`
`LLC, IPR2018-01383, Paper 9, at 6-7 (Nov. 19, 2018). Thus, the BRI standard
`
`applicable in the Google IPR would also apply to ZTE’s Petition, as “that case” will
`
`proceed by ZTE replacing Google.2
`
`Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) plainly states that the Phillips standard shall be
`
`used “[i]n an inter partes review proceeding.” (emphasis added). This language
`
`clearly ties the claim construction standard to a proceeding rather than a petition.
`
`Here, ZTE seeks to be joined to the earlier IPR proceeding where the BRI applies.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner fails to cite a single case that supports its position,
`
`which would essentially prohibit joinders to any IPRs filed when BRI was
`
`applicable. Patent Owner also fails to identify a single claim term that would have
`
`a different construction under the BRI versus Phillips standard.
`
`
`2 If the Board deems that its rule(s) require application of the Phillips standard to
`
`ZTE’s Petition, ZTE seeks waiver of such rule(s) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).
`
`4
`
`
`
`B. Any Need For RPI Discovery Has No Bearing on Joinder
`CyWee contends that joinder “will necessitate additional discovery to
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`
`determine what other unknown makers of Android-based devices are RPIs to the
`
`Google IPR.” (Opp. at 9.) First, even if CyWee has a plausible concern that other
`
`parties are RPIs to Google’s petition, CyWee can seek RPI discovery in the Google
`
`IPR, regardless of whether anyone files a motion for joinder. Second, CyWee’s
`
`unsupported assertion that unnamed phone manufacturers whose products “utilize
`
`the Google Android operating system” may have “an interest in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding,” (Opp. at 8-9) is legally insufficient to convert any such party into an
`
`RPI. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-00883,
`
`Paper 29, at 15 (Oct. 11, 2018) (finding aligned interests to be insufficient).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, ZTE respectfully requests that the Board institute
`
`the ZTE petition and grant joinder with the Google IPR.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`March 11, 2019
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`
`
` / James R. Sobieraj/
`
` James R. Sobieraj
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00525
`’978 Patent
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I certify that, on March 11, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion for Joinder to Inter Partes
`
`Review IPR2018-001257 to be served electronically on the following:
`
`Jay P. Kesan: jkesan@dimuro.com
`Cecil E. Key: ckey@dimuro.com
`Arlen Papazian: apapazian@dimuro.com
`DimuroGinsberg PC
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`
` March 11, 2019
`Date
`
` / James R. Sobieraj/
` James R. Sobieraj
`
`6
`
`