throbber

`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`Samsung Electronics’ America, Inc. (“Samsung”) motion to join IPR2018-
`
`01589 (the “HTC IPR”) must be denied because all but one of the claims Samsung
`
`seeks to challenge are not part of the HTC IPR. Samsung is essentially seeking to
`
`add fourteen claims to the HTC IPR. The Board’s institution decision clearly
`
`prohibits HTC from challenging claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–16, and 19 within IPR2018-
`
`01589 and mandates that HTC only challenge those claims in IPR2018-00387 (the
`
`“Apple IPR”), which HTC joined. Unlike HTC, Samsung cannot challenge those
`
`claims within the Apple IPR because Samsung’s deadline to join the Apple IPR has
`
`long passed. Further, the Board cannot institute Samsung’s Petition only as to claim
`
`20 because this is forbidden under SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354,
`
`200 L. Ed. 2d 695 (2018). The Board should also exercise its discretion to deny the
`
`motion for joinder under § 325(d) because it represents a serial attack on the ’508
`
`patent by Samsung and an attempt by Samsung adopt the roadmap of other IPRs and
`
`cure the defects in its own first IPR.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Samsung was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`patent on September 18, 2017.
`
`Uniloc filed suit against Samsung for infringing U.S. Patent 7,653,508 (the
`
`“’508 patent”) on September 15, 2017. See Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-00650 (TXED). Summons was issued as
`
`to Samsung on September 18, 2017. On October 4, 2017, Samsung appeared in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`matter, filing an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer. Id. at Dkt. 16.
`
`Samsung’s motion for extension admits Samsung was served with the complaint on
`
`September 18, 2017. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Samsung failed to timely join the Apple IPR.
`
`Six IPRs have been filed against the ’508 patent. The first was filed by Apple
`
`on December 22, 2017. See Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-00387 (PTAB)
`
`(Paper 2). On July 23, 2018, the Board instituted trial in the Apple IPR on claims
`
`1–4, 6–8, 11–16, and 19. See IPR2018-00387 (Paper 6). The Apple IPR has been
`
`fully briefed1 and a trial hearing was held on April 2, 2019. See IPR2018-00387
`
`(Paper 20). The second IPR against the ’580 patent was also filed by Apple.
`
`Institution was denied on October 18, 2018. See Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`
`IPR2018-01026 (PTAB) (Paper 9 at 7).
`
`The third and fourth IPRs against the ’508 patent were filed on August 23,
`
`2018 by, respectively, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”)
`
`(IPR2018-01589) and LG Electronics, Inc. (IPR2018-01577). On the same day,
`
`HTC and LG both moved to join the Apple IPR. See IPR2018-01589 (Paper 3);
`
`IPR2018-01577 (Paper 3).
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s preliminary response was filed May 7, 2018. Paper 7. Patent
`Owner’s response was filed on October 11, 2018. Paper 11. Petitioner’s reply was
`filed January 2, 2019. Paper 12. Patent owner filed a sur-reply on February 4, 2019.
`Paper 14.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`Samsung opted not to join the Apple IPR. Instead, Samsung filed its own IPR
`
`petition against the ’508 patent on September 18, 2018, exactly one year after it was
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. See Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-01756 (PTAB) (Paper 1).
`
`This was the fifth IPR filed against the ’508 patent. The Board denied institution on
`
`March 11, 2019, finding the IPR would not be an efficient use of the Board’s
`
`resources. See IPR2018-01756 (Paper 7 at 30).
`
`C. The HTC IPR institution decision expressly forbids HTC from
`advancing any arguments related to any claims other than claim
`20.
`
`The decision instituting the HTC IPR, which Samsung now seeks to join,
`
`expressly forbids HTC from advancing any arguments related to all but one of the
`
`claims Samsung challenges in its joinder petition. In its petition, HTC sought to
`
`challenge the same claims challenged in the Apple IPR plus claim 20. The Board
`
`denied HTC’s attempt to add claim 20 to the Apple IPR “due to the advanced state
`
`of the Apple IPR” and the impact joinder of claim 20 would have on the schedule.
`
`See IPR2018-01589 (Paper 9 at 9). The Board ordered that HTC challenge only
`
`claim 20 in the HTC IPR and that it advance arguments regarding all other claims
`
`only in the Apple IPR:
`
`Given that Petitioner is being joined as a party to the Apple IPR and
`that “Petitioner[] agree[s] to proceed on the grounds, evidence, and
`arguments advanced, or that will be advanced, in the Apple IPR as
`instituted,” Petitioner is bound by the ultimate determination made in
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`the Apple IPR regarding claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–16, and 19. See 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 315(e)(1), 325(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1). Accordingly, Petitioner
`shall not advance any arguments regarding these claims in this
`proceeding; all grounds raised by Petitioner regarding these claims
`will be addressed in the Apple IPR. The parties are limited to
`advancing arguments regarding claim 20 in this proceeding.
`
`
`Id. at 10 (emphasis added).
`
`D.
`
`Samsung’s petition seeks to advance arguments concerning
`fourteen claims that the HTC IPR institution decision forbids HTC
`from advancing.
`
`Samsung filed this IPR on March 27, 2019, after completion of all briefing
`
`in the Apple IPR and only days before the final hearing was held on April 2, 2019.
`
`Far from being a simple “me to” petition as Samsung claims, its petition challenges
`
`fourteen claims (claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–16, and 19) that the institution decision
`
`expressly forbids HTC from challenging within the HTC IPR.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Samsung’s motion is not a “me too” motion.
`
`Samsung’s motion is not a “me too” motion as Samsung claims. Samsung
`
`is attempting to challenge, within IPR2018-01589, claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–16, and 19
`
`– something the Board has prohibited HTC from doing. In short, Samsung is
`
`attempting to add fourteen claims to the HTC IPR. Samsung cannot step into
`
`HTC’s shoes and become a petitioner in the Apple IPR because it failed to timely
`
`move to join the Apple IPR.
`
`The Federal Circuit has expressed disapproval of the practice of using joinder
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`to add time-barred challenges to an IPR. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied
`
`sub nom. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd., 138 S.
`
`Ct. 1695, 200 L. Ed. 2d 951 (2018) (“We think it unlikely that Congress intended
`
`that petitioners could employ the joinder provision to circumvent the time bar by
`
`adding time-barred issues to an otherwise timely proceeding, whether the petitioner
`
`seeking to add new issues is the same party that brought the timely proceeding, as
`
`in this case, or the petitioner is a new party.”).
`
`B.
`
`Samsung’s joinder motion is an untimely attempt to circumvent
`the deadline to join Apple’s IPR.
`
`Samsung’s joinder motion should be denied because it is an untimely attempt
`
`to circumvent the deadline to join Apple’s IPR, and thereby circumvent the one-
`
`year bar to Samsung’s petition. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), a party cannot file an
`
`IPR petition more than one year after “the petitioner is served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the patent.”
`
`Samsung was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’508
`
`patent on September 18, 2017, more than a year ago. Samsung attempts to avoid
`
`the one-year bar by seeking to join HTC’s petition, but the HTC petition is itself
`
`merely a joinder petition to the Apple IPR. Samsung’s deadline to join the Apple
`
`IPR was one month after the institution of the Apple IPR. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b). Samsung failed to meet that deadline.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`Samsung seeks to “join” HTC in challenging claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, and 19-
`
`20, but the HTC IPR institution decision allows HTC to challenge only claim 20 in
`
`the HTC IPR proceeding. IPR2018-01589 (Paper 9 at 9) (“Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`shall not advance any arguments regarding these claims in this proceeding.”). The
`
`only proceeding in which HTC (and thus Samsung) can challenge claims 1–4, 6–8,
`
`11–16, and 19 is the Apple IPR, but Samsung is time-barred from joining the Apple
`
`IPR and is therefore time barred from challenging claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–16, and 19.
`
`C. Under SAS, the Board cannot institute Samsung’s petition only as
`to claim 20.
`
`
`Because Samsung cannot join the Apple IPR and challenge claims 1–4, 6–8,
`
`11–16, and 19, institution must also be denied as to claim 20. SAS Inst., Inc. v.
`
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 200 L. Ed. 2d 695 (2018). Under SAS, the Board
`
`“must address every claim the petitioner has challenged” in a Final Written
`
`Decision. Id. There will be a Final Written Decision as to all claims challenged
`
`by HTC because HTC’s challenges will either be addressed in the HTC IPR or the
`
`Apple IPR. That is not the case for Samsung. Under the clear terms of the
`
`institution decision, there can be no Final Written Decision on claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–
`
`16, and 19 in IPR2018-01589. And Samsung cannot be joined to the Apple IPR
`
`because the time to join the Apple IPR has long passed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`D.
`
`Samsung’s petition should be denied as a serial attack on the ’508
`patent.
`
`Allowing Samsung to now join the Apple IPR by way of HTC’s joinder
`
`petition will prejudice Patent Owner and obviate filing deadlines that Congress and
`
`the Patent Office saw fit to impose. The prejudice of allowing serial attacks against
`
`the same patent are self-evident. Indeed, Director Andrei Iancu recently sat on an
`
`IPR panel that expressly made this very point. That panel denied three requests from
`
`Valve Corp. for inter partes review of the same patent. Valve Corporation v.
`
`Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. IPR2019-00084 (Paper 13); Valve Corporation
`
`v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. IPR2019-00062 (Paper 11); Valve
`
`Corporation v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. IPR2019-00063 (Paper 13).
`
`The challenges, while they were Valve’s first with respect to the patent, came
`
`on the heels of an unsuccessful bid for review brought by HTC. The panel
`
`(including Director Iancu) made clear that challenges need not come from the same
`
`party in order to be labeled “serial and repetitive attacks.” IPR2019-00084 (Paper
`
`13) at 15. Senior members of the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual
`
`Property singled out the ruling in a recent letter urging Direct Iancu to crack down
`
`on
`
`serial
`
`patent
`
`challenges
`
`on
`
`all
`
`fronts.
`
`
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`http://www.ippromagazine.com/ippromagazinenews/article.php?article_id=6650.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`E.
`
`Joinder should be denied where the second-filed petition is an
`attempt to cure the deficiencies of the first-filed petition.
`
`Even if Samsung’s petition is timely, and it is not, the joinder motion should
`
`be denied because it is an attempt to cure the deficiencies of its already-rejected,
`
`first-filed petition. The Board has repeatedly denied joinder when a petitioner
`
`attempts to use a prior institution decision to remedy deficiencies in the first-filed
`
`petition. This is particularly the case where, as here, the petitioner does not offer
`
`any explanation why the arguments were not offered during the first-filed petition
`
`and where the second--filed petition would be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b).2
`
`The Board has denied joinder under these circumstances even when the
`
`patent owner does not oppose the motion. Where “the § 315(b) bar would apply
`
`absent joinder, [the Board] hesitate[s] to allow a petitioner a second bite one month
`
`
`2 See, e.g., LG Electronics, IPR2015-01620, slip op. at 10-11 (“Petitioner now
`presents arguments that the Petitioner could have made in the First Petition, had it
`chosen to do so. The Petition is aimed at matters identified in the Decision to Institute
`in [the First Petition] as not adequately addressed to justify inter partes review.”);
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, IPR2015-00820,
`slip op. at 4 (PTAB May 15, 2015) (Paper 12) (petitioner provided no reason why
`the reference “could not have been identified and relied on in earlier, timely-filed
`petitions” and sought to use a prior decision “as guide to remedy deficiencies in the
`earlier filed petition”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Affinity Labs of Texas,
`LLC, IPR2015-00821, slip op. at 4-5 (PTAB May 15, 2015) (Paper 10); Micro
`Motion, Inc. v. Invensys Systems, Inc., IPR2014-01409, slip op. at 14 (PTAB Feb.
`15, 2015) (Paper 14); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc. , IPR2014- 00907, slip
`op. at 3-4, 10-11 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2014) (Paper 10).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`after institution in a first case, at the expense of scheduling constraints for everyone,
`
`as well as additional costs (and potential prejudice) to Patent Owner, absent a good
`
`reason for doing so.” Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Endotach LLC, IPR2014-00695, slip
`
`op. at 4 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014) (Paper 18).
`
`Additionally, the Board has exercised its discretion under § 325(d), denying
`
`institution of an inter partes review and dismissing the motion for joinder as moot
`
`where “the obviousness grounds asserted in the present Petition are expressly
`
`intended to ‘squarely address[] the alleged deficiencies identified by the Board’ …
`
`the four obviousness grounds are ‘second bites at the apple,’ which use [the
`
`Board’s] prior decision as a road map to remedy [petitioner’s] prior, deficient
`
`challenge.” Butamax Adv. Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014-00581, slip op. at
`
`12-13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
` For the foregoing reasons, Samsung motion to join must be denied.
`
`
`Date: April 26, 2019
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.co
`m Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2019-00889
`U.S. Patent 7,653,508
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served electronically on
`
`June 22, 2018 on the following counsel of record for Petitioner at the below-listed
`
`email address:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 26, 2019
`
`
`
`
`/Brett A. Mangrum
`
`
`
`
`
`Brett A. Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.co
`m Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket