`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: February 4, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIOLOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01349
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`On Motion to Consolidate Schedules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01349
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`Introduction
`On July 22, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition to institute inter
`partes review of claims 1, 2, and 5 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,016,676 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’676 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). Concurrent with filing of the Petition, Petitioner filed a
`“Motion for Consolidation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a).” Paper 3 (hereinafter “Motion”). Within the
`Motion, Petitioner explains its requested relief as follows: “Petitioner
`Marvell Semiconductor Inc. (‘Marvell’ respectfully requests
`consolidation of schedules of this IPR (‘Marvell IPR’) with the inter
`partes reviews concerning the same patent in Microsoft Corporation
`v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Case Nos. IPR2019-01116 and IPR2019-01125
`(collectively, the ‘Microsoft IPRs’).” Id. at 1.
`Petitioner seeks only synchronization of the trial schedule, if
`review is instituted here, with the trial schedules of IPR2019-01116
`and IPR2019-1125, rather than actual consolidation of proceedings in
`terms of substantive issues, filings, and/or arguments, or discovery.
`That is confirmed through the following representation in the Motion:
`“Marvell emphasizes that it is only requesting consolidation for the
`purposes of synchronizing the schedules of the Marvell IPR with the
`Microsoft IPRs. Marvell is not requesting joint briefing or
`depositions in conjunction with the Microsoft IPRs.” Id. at 2.
`Marvell indicates that it seeks to avoid the final written
`decisions in the Microsoft IPRs to issue first, prior to issuance of any
`final written decision in the proceeding. Id. at 1–2. Marvell explains
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01349
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`that that would eliminate a potential estoppel argument under
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) by Patent Owner who may assert, incorrectly,
`that Petitioner is a real party in interest or privy in the Microsoft IPRs.
`Id.
`
`Discussion
`On November 27, 2019, we declined institution of inter partes
`
`review in IPR2019-01125. IPR2019-01125, Paper 8. There is no
`ongoing trial in IPR2019-01125. In IPR2019-01116, we instituted
`inter partes review on December 4, 2019. IPR2019-01116, Paper 9.
`
`Petitioner does not explain how, with a two month gap in the
`relative dates of institution of trial between this proceeding and
`IPR2019-01116, any trial schedule for this proceeding reasonably can
`be synchronized with the ongoing trial schedule in IPR2019-01116.
`We decline to give Patent Owner less than one month for filing the
`Patent Owner Response in this proceeding. Also, depriving the Patent
`Owner of a potential argument, although a meritless argument from
`the perspective of Petitioner, is not a proper basis for setting the trial
`schedule in a certain way. The Patent Owner should not be deprived
`of an opportunity to make an argument by adjusting the schedule for
`that purpose.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Motion is denied.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01349
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Harper Batts
`Jeffrey Liang
`Chris Ponder
`Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
`hbatts@sheppardmullin.com
`cponder@sheppardmullin.com
`jliang@sheppardmullin.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`Etheridge Law Group
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`4
`
`