`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`GOPRO, INC., GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND GARMIN USA, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2019-01107
`
`
`REPLY TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2019-00127
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The sole basis for Canon U.S.A., Inc.’s opposition to the Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`
`
`is the different claim constructions standards due to the timing of filing Canon’s
`
`Petition for IPR (IPR2019-00127 or the “Canon IPR”) versus present Petition.
`
`Canon hypothesizes the Canon IPR may be impacted by the different claim
`
`construction standards. Paper 13, 5-6. Importantly, Canon provides no actual
`
`evidence regarding the different claim construction standards will affect the Canon
`
`IPR nor does Canon identify any tangible prejudice to Canon. Because the Board
`
`has refused to preclude joinder in similar situations, and because Canon’s alleged
`
`prejudice is hypothetical at best, joinder is appropriate.
`
` THE DIFFERENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS WILL
`HAVE NO MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE CANON IPR
` Canon Speculates the Different Standards Will Impact the Canon
`IPR Without Identifying Actual Harm
`In the GoPro/Garmin IPR Petition, Petitioners GoPro, Inc., Garmin
`
`International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc., noted the different claim construction
`
`standards applicable to the Canon IPR (filed before November 13, 2018) and the
`
`present IPR (filed after November 13, 2018). Paper 1, 18. GoPro/Garmin stated:
`
`“Petitioners submit that any proposed constructions are at least included within the
`
`scope of either standard, and as such, the applicable standard does not affect any
`
`proposed claim constructions.” Id.; see also Paper 4, Motion for Joinder, at 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Regarding the claim construction standards (i.e., BRI vs. Phillips), any proposed
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`
`constructions in the Canon IPR are at least included within the scope of either
`
`standard. Therefore, the difference in standards should not have any material effect
`
`on whether joinder is appropriate.”)
`
`Canon complains that due to the different standards “the issues in this
`
`proceeding may have to be decided under both standards ….” Paper 13, 1 (emphasis
`
`added). Canon does not identify any claim term that would have different
`
`constructions under the different standards. Nor does Canon identify any actual
`
`harm that would result from the different standards. Canon merely speculates that
`
`the different claim construction standards may complicate the proceedings. Id.; see
`
`also id., 2 (referring to the “possibility” of Patent Owner Cellspin presenting new
`
`arguments under the Phillips standard). Canon’s own argument that the issues in the
`
`proceeding may have to be decided under both standards make clear the hypothetical
`
`nature of Canon’s complaint. Canon cannot point to any claim term that would be
`
`impacted by the different construction standards, let alone how any alleged
`
`difference would result in different unpatentability analyses.
`
`Under similar facts, the Board previously found joinder appropriate.
`
`Priceline.com LLC and Booking.com B.V. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-0040,
`
`Paper 9 at 8-9, n. 3 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2019). In Priceline, the original petition was
`
`filed under the BRI standard, whereas the joinder Petition was filed under the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phillips standard. Id. Joinder petitioner submitted the different claim construction
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`
`standards would not change the outcome of the original IPR. Id. The Board agreed
`
`and instituted the joiner IPR and joined with the original related IPR. Id.
`
`The same analysis applies in the present IPR. Any proposed constructions are
`
`at least included within the scope of either standard. Paper 4, 4. Therefore, the
`
`different claim construction standards will have no material impact on the IPR.
`
`Joinder is also appropriate because Canon does not identify any claim
`
`construction that would be impacted by the different standards. In the Canon IPR,
`
`Canon did not propose any claim constructions in the Petition. Canon U.S.A., Inc. v.
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc., IPR2019-00127, Paper 1, 17-18 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018). In the
`
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner Cellspin construed two terms, “paired” and
`
`“cryptographically authenticating.” Id., Paper 6, 13-16. In the Institution Decision,
`
`the Board noted Canon did not expressly construe any claim, stating “[w]e proceed
`
`on the understanding that Petitioner [Canon] did not identify any dispute regarding
`
`claim construction and relies on the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id., Paper 7, 10. The Board determined it did
`
`not need to construe “paired” for purposes of institution. Id. For the term
`
`“cryptographically authenticating,” the Board provided a construction. Id., 12.
`
`At this juncture in the Canon IPR, Canon, Cellspin, and the Board have all
`
`had an opportunity to weigh in on any desired claim constructions. Even for the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`single claim construction presented by the Board (i.e., “cryptographically
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`
`authenticating”), Canon does not indicate in its Opposition that the construction
`
`would be different under Phillips. Canon merely speculates about “the possibility”
`
`that Cellspin will present a new construction. Paper 13, 6. Although this is doubtful
`
`given the constructions proposed to-date, GoPro/Garmin reiterate that any proposed
`
`or adopted constructions in the Canon IPR are at least included within the scope of
`
`either standard. Therefore, application of the Phillips standard does not materially
`
`impact the Canon IPR.
`
` Canon Proposes a Per Se Rule Against Joinder if Different Claim
`Construction Standards Apply
`Canon is advocating for a per se rule that for any IPR filed after November
`
`13, 2018, and seeking joinder with an IPR filed before such date, joinder should
`
`automatically be denied due to the different construction standards. See Paper 13, 6-
`
`7. This is inconsistent with the Board’s joinder practice since the claim construction
`
`rule change. Based on a search of joinder motions filed since the November 13, 2018
`
`rule change (using Docket Navigator), counsel for GoPro/Garmin identified 36
`
`joinder motions, with 25 of the motions being granted or partially granted. This alone
`
`shows that the Board routinely grants joinder even though the joinder IPR is filed
`
`under a different claim construction standard.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`Reproduced from Docket Navigator Search Performed July 9, 2019
`
`
`
`Taken to its logical conclusion, Canon is asking the Board to apply a per se
`
`rule to deny joinder based on the possibility of complications to the original IPR
`
`where different standards apply. Canon makes this request even though it has not
`
`identified any actual issue that would delay or otherwise complicate the Canon IPR.
`
`Therefore, joinder is appropriate.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
` Canon Is the Only Party Opposing Joinder
`Patent Owner Cellspin did not oppose joinder. Paper 11. It is reasonable to
`
`infer Cellspin does not see a difference in the claim construction standards.
`
`Presumably, Cellspin would have raised the issue of the different standards if
`
`Cellspin believed the different standards materially affected the Canon IPR.
`
`Therefore, it is highly unlikely Cellspin will present new claim construction
`
`arguments under the Phillips standard, as hypothesized by Canon. Paper 13, 2, 8-9.
`
`Yet further, the ’698 Patent is undergoing a second IPR, IPR2019-00131, filed
`
`by Petitioner, Panasonic Corp. of North America. GoPro/Garmin have filed a motion
`
`for joinder to the Panasonic IPR. GoPro, Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc., IPR2019-01108,
`
`Paper 4 (P.T.A.B. May 24, 2019). Neither Petitioner Panasonic nor Patent Owner
`
`Cellspin opposed GoPro/Garmin’s motion for joinder. Id., 1. Because the claims
`
`must be construed consistently between the Canon and Panasonic IPRs, and further
`
`because neither Cellspin nor Panasonic has indicated that different claim
`
`construction standards would possibly materially affect the Panasonic IPR, there is
`
`no evidence of any harm or complications to either the Canon or Panasonic IPRs due
`
`to the different standards.
`
` GOPRO/GARMIN’S USE OF A DIFFERENT DECLARANT WILL
`HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE CANON IPR
`To the extent GoPro/Garmin were forced to use a different Declarant in the
`
`present Petition due to Canon refusing to allow GoPro/Garmin to retain Canon’s
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declarant, Dr. Vijay Madisetti, the difference in the declarants will not complicate
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`
`the Canon IPR, as asserted by Canon. Paper 13, 6, n. 3. In the Motion for Joinder,
`
`GoPro/Garmin noted their Declarant, Mr. Christensen, had reviewed Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`opinion and that Mr. Christensen was “in agreement with Dr. Madisetti’s opinions
`
`and adopts them as his own.” Paper 4, 5, citing Ex. 1033, Declaration of Mr. Gerald
`
`Christensen, ¶ 15. GoPro/Garmin further stated they are willing to rely on Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s opinions, should Canon permit it. Id. GoPro/Garmin even went so far as
`
`to agree to withdraw Mr. Christensen’s declaration and solely rely on Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`declaration, “should the Board determine Petitioners’ reliance on Mr. Christensen as
`
`an expert would adversely affect completion of the Canon IPR according to the
`
`Scheduling Order in the Canon IPR and within the one-year statutory timeframe.”
`
`Id., 5-6. GoPro/Garmin made “these concessions to ensure no, or negligible, impact
`
`on the schedule to joinder.” Id., 6. In a similar situation in Priceline, the Board found
`
`that “joinder with the related IPR would have minimal impact.” Priceline, IPR2019-
`
`00440, Paper 9, 8-9.
`
`Because Mr. Christensen adopts Dr. Madisetti’s opinions as his own and
`
`presents no other substantive opinions beyond those of Dr. Madisetti, GoPro/Garmin
`
`submit that joinder using Mr. Christensen will not affect the claim construction or
`
`otherwise complicate the Canon IPR. In short, if this is an issue, it is a problem of
`
`Canon’s own making that it can easily solve by permitted GoPro/Garmin to retain
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`its expert.
`
`
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`
` CONCLUSION
`Because the different claim construction standards will have no material
`
`impact on the timing of the Canon IPR or otherwise complicate the Canon IPR,
`
`joinder is appropriate and should be granted.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 29, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` / David T. Xue /
`David T. Xue, Reg. No. 54,554
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner,
`GOPRO, INC.
`
`
` /Jennifer C. Bailey/
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No. 52,583
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`Jennifer.Bailey@eriseip.com
`Adam.Seitz@eriseip.com
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners,
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`AND GARMIN USA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2019-01107
` Reply to Motion for Joinder
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` hereby certify that on July 29, 2019, a copy of the REPLY TO MOTION
`
` I
`
`
`
`FOR JOINDER TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2019-00127,
`
`was served by filing this document through the PTAB’s E2E Filing System as well
`
`as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner, Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`John J. Edmonds, Reg. No. 56,184
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`pto-edmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`Stephen F. Schlather, Reg. No. 45,081
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`1616 South Voss Road, Suite 125
`Houston, Texas 77057
`sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 29, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ David T. Xue /
`David T. Xue
` Reg. No. 54,554
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`