`Filed: August 22, 2019
`
`Filed on behalf of: Snap Inc.
`
`By: Yar Chaikovsky (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Chad Peterman (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`IPR2019-00938
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2019-00925
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`Page
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`I.
`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 ................................................................................. 3
`1.
`Joinder with the Facebook Petition is Appropriate ..................... 4
`2.
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability ............................................................................ 5
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Facebook
`Proceeding Trial Schedule .......................................................... 5
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery ......................... 6
`4.
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`3.
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) ........................................................... 3
`
`Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and WhatsApp Inc. v. BlackBerry
`Limited,
`IPR2019-00925 ..................................................................................................... 1
`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) .............................................. 3, 5, 7
`Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 (Apr. 10, 2015) .................................................... 7
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2016-01023, Paper No. 20 (Oct. 27, 2016) .................................................... 5
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper No. 12 (Aug. 24, 2016) ................................................... 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(b) ............................................................................................................ 1, 4
`§ 42.22 ................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.53 ................................................................................................................... 7
`§ 42.122(b) ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order (Paper 9), Snap Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Snap”)
`
`respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder to join its previously filed petition in
`
`the instant proceeding (Paper 2) (“the Snap petition”) with Facebook’s petition
`
`(IPR2019-00925) (“the Facebook petition”) for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634 (“the ’634 patent”).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), Snap
`
`requests institution of the Snap petition and joinder with Facebook, Inc.,
`
`Instagram, LLC and WhatsApp Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited, IPR2019-00925 (“the
`
`Facebook proceeding”), which concerns the same claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18
`
`of the ’634 patent. This request is being submitted within the time set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Snap submits that the request for joinder is consistent with the policy
`
`surrounding inter partes reviews, as it is the most expedient way 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 Snap petition and the Facebook
`
`petition are substantially identical; they contain the same grounds (based on the
`
`same prior art combinations and supporting evidence) against the same claims.
`
`Further, upon joining the Facebook proceeding, Snap will act as an “understudy”
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`and will not assume an active role unless the current petitioners cease to participate
`
`in the instituted IPR. Accordingly, the proposed joinder will neither unduly
`
`complicated the Facebook proceeding nor delay its schedule. As such, the joinder
`
`will promote judicial efficiency in determining the patentability of the ’634 patent
`
`without prejudice to Patent Owner.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`The ’634 patent is at issue in infringement actions against Snap and
`
`Facebook in the Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-01844.
`
`2.
`
`On April 4, 2019, Facebook filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2019-00925) requesting cancelation of claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18 of the
`
`’634 patent.
`
`3.
`
`On April 5, 2019, Facebook filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2019-00938) requesting cancelation of claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18 of the
`
`’634 patent.
`
`4.
`
`The Snap petition and the Facebook petition are substantially
`
`identical; they contain the same grounds (based on the same prior art combinations
`
`and supporting evidence) against the same claims. Paper 2, 2; Paper 9, 1.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`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. 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 Aug. 18, 2019); see also
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Sols., Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 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 Petitioner’s motion for joinder.
`
`The Snap petition is substantively identical to the Facebook petition. Snap does
`
`not present any new grounds of unpatentability. Additionally, as all issues are
`
`substantively identical and Snap will act as an “understudy,” joinder will have
`
`minimal or no impact on the schedule of the Facebook proceeding. See LG v.
`
`Memory Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6 (Oct. 5, 2015)
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`(granting motion for joinder where petitioners requested an “understudy” role).
`
`Moreover, briefing and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a
`
`single proceeding. Accordingly, joinder is appropriate.
`
`Joinder with the Facebook Petition 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) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here,
`
`joinder with the Facebook petition is appropriate because the Snap petition
`
`introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`Facebook petition (i.e., it challenges the same claims of the same patent, relies on
`
`essentially the same expert declaration, and is based on the same grounds and
`
`combinations of prior art submitted in the Facebook petition). Paper 2, 2. Other
`
`than minor differences, such as differences related to formalities of a different
`
`party filing the petition, there are no changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or
`
`arguments introduced in the Facebook petition. Because these proceedings are
`
`substantively identical, good cause exists for joining this proceeding with the
`
`Facebook petition so that the Board, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can
`
`efficiently “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of the Snap and
`
`Facebook petitions in a single proceeding.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability
`The Snap petition is substantively identical to the Facebook petition (i.e.,
`
`2.
`
`challenging the same claims of the same patent, relying on essentially the same
`
`expert declaration, and on the same grounds and combinations of prior art
`
`submitted in the Facebook petition). 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”).
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Facebook
`Proceeding Trial Schedule
`Joinder will have minimal impact, if any, on the Facebook proceeding
`
`because the Snap petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability.
`
`See LG, 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]”). Further,
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner explicitly consents to any trial schedule the Board issues in the Facebook
`
`proceeding. There are no new issues for the Board to address, and Patent Owner
`
`will not be required to present any additional responses or arguments.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response will also not be negatively impacted because the
`
`issues presented in the Snap petition are identical to the issues presented in the
`
`Facebook petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional
`
`analysis or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the
`
`petition in the Facebook proceeding. Also, because the Snap petition relies on the
`
`same expert and the same declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the
`
`proposed joined proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder with the Facebook proceeding would not unduly
`
`burden or negatively impact the trial schedule the Board issues in the Facebook
`
`proceeding.
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`4.
`Snap explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role which will simplify
`
`briefing and discovery. Specifically, Snap explicitly agrees, upon joining the
`
`Facebook proceeding, that the following conditions, as previously approved by the
`
`Board in similar circumstances, shall apply so long as the current petitioner in
`
`IPR2019-00925 remains an active party:
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`a) all filings by Snap in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the
`
`filings of the current petitioner, unless a filing concerns issues solely involving
`
`Snap;
`
`b) Snap shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board in the Facebook proceeding, or introduce any argument or
`
`discovery not already introduced by the current petitioners;
`
`c) Snap shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and the
`
`current petitioners concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`d) at deposition, Snap 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 petitioners.
`
`See Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 at 5 (Apr.
`
`10, 2015). Unless and until the current petitioners cease to participate in the
`
`Facebook proceeding, Snap will not assume an active role therein.
`
`Thus, by Snap accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and the current
`
`petitioners can comply with any trial schedule issued by the Board without needing
`
`any duplicative efforts by the Board or 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 “joinder would increase efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`discovery, and would reduce costs and burdens on the parties as well as the Board”
`
`where petitioners agreed to an “understudy” role). Snap is further willing to agree
`
`to any other reasonable conditions the Board deems necessary.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the factors discussed above, Snap respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant the Snap petition and grant joinder with the Snap IPR.
`
`Dated: August 22, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/s/ Yar Chaikovsky
`Yar Chaikovsky (Reg. No. 39,625)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`Counsel for Petitioner, Snap Inc.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2019-00938
`Snap’s Motion for Joinder
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Patent Owner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for
`
`Joinder by electronic means on August 22, 2019 at the following address of record:
`
`Michael T. Hawkins
`Craig A. Deutsch
`Kim Leung
`Nicholas Stephens
`Kenneth W. Darby
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`IPR21828-0043IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`James M. Glass
`Ogi Zivojnovic
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart, & Sullivan, LLP
`qe-blackberry-ipr@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`By: /Yar R. Chaikovsky/
`Yar R. Chaikovsky (Reg. No. 39,625)
`
`
`
`
`
`