IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00376
`U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676
`
`__________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2019-01116
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00376
`U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676
`
`__________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2019-01116
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................................ 1
`II. Background and Related Proceedings ................................................................. 2
`III. Statement of Reasons for Relief Requested ........................................................ 3
`a.
`Legal Standard ............................................................................................ 3
`b.
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely .................................................. 4
`c.
`The Kyocera Factors Favor Joinder ........................................................... 4
`Factor 1: Joinder is appropriate ............................................................... 4
`i.
`ii. Factor 2: Ericsson’s petition proposes no new grounds
`of unpatentability .................................................................................... 6
`iii. Factor 3: Joinder will not unduly burden or negatively
`impact the Microsoft IPR trial schedule ................................................. 6
`iv. Factor 4: Procedures to simplify briefing and discovery ......................... 8
`IV. Conclusion .........................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC,
`IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 (PTAB May 30, 2019) ...............................................7, 9
`BlackBerry Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01283, Paper 10 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2019) ................................................... 6
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 at 14 (Oct. 30, 2018) .................................................... 8
`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2018-01260, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018) ................................................. 8
`Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01352, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) ......................................... 7, 9, 10
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) ................................................. 4
`Lear, Inc. v. Adkins,
`395 U.S. 653 (1969) ................................................................................................ 5
`Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH,
`IPR2019-00980, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2019) ................................................. 8
`Samsung Elecs., Co. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) .............................................4, 6
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) ............................................6, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ....................................................................................... 1, 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`I. Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson” or “Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion
`
`for Joinder together with a Petition (“Ericsson Petition”) for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676 (“the ʼ676 patent”) filed contemporaneously
`
`herewith. The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1 and 2 of the ’676
`
`patent in Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Case No. IPR2019-01116, on
`
`December 4, 2019 (“the Microsoft IPR”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Ericsson requests institution of inter partes review of claims 1
`
`and 2 of the ’676 patent and requests joinder with IPR2019-01116.
`
`Ericsson’s request for joinder is timely because it is made no later than one
`
`month after the December 4, 2019, institution date of the Microsoft IPR. The
`
`Ericsson Petition is substantively identical to Microsoft’s petition (“Microsoft
`
`Petition”) in the Microsoft IPR, and Ericsson seeks institution on the same claims,
`
`prior art, and grounds for unpatentability that were instituted in the Microsoft IPR.
`
`Therefore, Ericsson’s petition warrants institution for at least the same reasons that
`
`the Board instituted the Microsoft IPR. In addition, Ericsson proposes to streamline
`
`discovery and briefing by taking an “understudy role.”
`
`Petitioner in the Microsoft IPR does not oppose Ericsson’s instant motion.
`
`Joinder is appropriate here because it will not unduly burden or prejudice the
`
`parties to the Microsoft IPR and will efficiently resolve the question of the ’676
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`patent’s validity, based on the identical grounds raised in both the Microsoft IPR
`
`and the Ericsson IPR, in a single proceeding.
`
`II. Background and Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`The ʼ676 patent has been asserted in the following litigation: Uniloc 2017
`
`LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 8:18-cv-02053 (C.D. Cal.), filed November 17,
`
`2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`November 17, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al.,
`
`2:18-cv-00513 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018 (“the Verizon case”); Uniloc
`
`2017 LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`November 17, 2018 (“the AT&T case”); Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Google LLC,
`
`2:18-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.), filed October 31, 2018; Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v.
`
`AT&T, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-00379 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 29, 2018; Uniloc 2017
`
`LLC, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-00380 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`August 29, 2018; and Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, 8:18-cv-
`
`01279 (C.D. Cal.), filed July 24, 2018.
`
`
`
`In addition to the Microsoft IPR, various claims of the ʼ676 patent were or
`
`are being challenged in the following PTAB matters: Microsoft Corporation v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01125 (P.T.A.B.) (claim 5), institution denied; Marvell
`
`Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01349 (P.T.A.B.) (challenging
`
`claims 1, 2, and 5); Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`01350 (P.T.A.B.) (challenging claims 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9); Google, LLC v. Uniloc
`
`2017 LLC, IPR2019-01541 (P.T.A.B.) (challenging claims 1, 2, 4, and 9); and
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01550 (P.T.A.B.) (challenging claims
`
`1, 2, and 8).
`
`III. Statement of Reasons for Relief Requested
`
`As explained in detail below, Ericsson’s motion for joinder should be
`
`granted because the motion is timely, and the Kyocera factors favor joinder.
`
`a. Legal Standard
`
`The Board may join as a party to an instituted inter partes review a person
`
`who has properly filed a petition for inter partes review that warrants institution.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Any request for joinder must be filed “no later than one month
`
`after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). A petition for inter partes review is not subject to the one-
`
`year statutory time bar if the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`“A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified.” Samsung Elecs., Co. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`12 at 5 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)).
`
`b. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`Ericsson’s Motion for Joinder is timely because it is being filed within one
`
`month of the December 4, 2019, institution of the Microsoft IPR. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b).
`
`c. The Kyocera Factors Favor Joinder
`
`i. Factor 1: Joinder is appropriate
`
`Joinder with the Microsoft IPR is appropriate because the Ericsson Petition
`
`involves the same patent, challenges the same claims, and is based on the same
`
`grounds and same technical expert declaration testimony relied upon in the
`
`Microsoft Petition. Additionally, as noted below, the Ericsson Petition raises only
`
`the grounds from the Microsoft IPR. In short, the Ericsson Petition is substantively
`
`identical to the Microsoft Petition. The only minor changes include (1) changes
`
`necessary for proper identification of the party filing the petition and
`
`corresponding documents; (2) a substantively identical declaration (signed by a
`
`librarian at Haynes and Boone, LLP, rather than a paralegal from the law firm of
`
`Microsoft’s counsel in IPR2019-01116) regarding details related to the public
`
`accessibility of certain documents; and (3) correction of minor typographical
`
`errors. On the merits, the Ericsson Petition should therefore be instituted for at
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`least the same reasons that the Board instituted the Microsoft IPR. Further, good
`
`cause exists to allow joinder, given that the Ericsson Petition is substantively
`
`identical to the Microsoft Petition, and joinder would allow the Board to
`
`effectively resolve the identical challenges raised by both parties in a single
`
`proceeding.
`
`Additionally, Ericsson is currently involved in litigation based on Patent
`
`Owner’s allegation that Ericsson’s products infringe the ʼ676 patent. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1013 at 1, 12 and Ex. 1014 at 1, 12 (Orders granting unopposed Motions to
`
`Intervene in the Verizon case and the AT&T case). Ericsson therefore has a
`
`particular interest in the substantial questions of invalidity surrounding the ʼ676
`
`patent. Joinder is also appropriate for the additional reason that the invalidity
`
`grounds as to the challenged claims can be resolved through Ericsson’s continued
`
`participation in the IPR process, even if the original petitioner in IPR2019-01116
`
`were to reach a settlement with Patent Owner, or otherwise cease participation in
`
`that proceeding. The public interest in “permitting full and free competition in the
`
`use of ideas which are in reality a part of the public domain” Lear, Inc. v. Adkins,
`
`395 U.S. 653, 670 (1969), favors allowing joinder in this case, as joinder would
`
`allow Ericsson to continue participating in the IPR process if Microsoft ceases
`
`participation.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`ii. Factor 2: Ericsson’s petition proposes no new grounds of
`unpatentability
`
`The Ericsson Petition does not present any new grounds or arguments
`
`regarding unpatentability. It is substantively identical to the Microsoft Petition.
`
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder
`
`introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” BlackBerry Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01283, Paper 10 at 8
`
`(PTAB Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Samsung, IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 at 9)
`
`(emphasis added). This factor therefore favors joinder.
`
`iii. Factor 3: Joinder will not unduly burden or negatively
`impact the Microsoft IPR trial schedule
`
`Joinder will not unduly burden Patent Owner. Because the Ericsson Petition
`
`presents the same grounds and arguments as the Microsoft Petition, there are no
`
`new issues for Patent Owner to address. See Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) (granting motion for joinder
`
`and instituting IPR where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or
`
`discovery from Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR]”).
`
`Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in the Microsoft IPR is sufficient
`
`to address the Ericsson Petition because the issues presented are substantively
`
`identical. See Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Case No. IPR2019-01116
`
`(Paper 7).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`Likewise, joinder will not negatively impact the Microsoft IPR trial
`
`schedule. Ericsson expressly consents to the existing trial schedule. Further, as
`
`described below, Ericsson agrees to take an “understudy” role in the joined
`
`proceed, so long as Microsoft remains an active party in the joined proceeding.
`
`See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC, IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB
`
`May 30, 2019) (granting motion for joinder where the movant presented a
`
`substantively identical petition and agreed to take an “understudy” role in the
`
`joined proceeding); Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2018-01352, Paper 11 at 3–
`
`5 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (same).
`
`Finally, the Ericsson Petition relies on the same technical expert (and a
`
`substantively identical declaration from that expert), as well as substantively
`
`identical declarations from the same IEEE employees in IPR2019-01116 regarding
`
`publication details of certain IEEE documents. Ex. 1004 (Decl. of Peter Rysavy);
`
`Ex. 1007 (Decl. of Gerard Grenier); Ex. 1010 (Decl. of Christina Boyce). Further,
`
`Ericsson has submitted a substantively identical declaration related to the public
`
`accessibility of certain documents.1 Therefore, joinder will not increase the
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1011 in the Microsoft IPR is the declaration of an employee of the law
`
`firm Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, the law firm of Microsoft’s counsel in IPR2019-
`
`01116. Ericsson has submitted a substantively identical declaration as Exhibit 1011
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`complexity of the proceeding. Indeed, the Board typically grants joinder where a
`
`petitioner presents a different witness with a substantially similar declaration. See,
`
`e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, IPR2019-00980, Paper 12 at
`
`3–4, 6–7 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2019); Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., IPR2018-01260,
`
`Paper 12 at 4, 6–7 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018); Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 (Oct. 30, 2018).
`
`iv. Factor 4: Procedures to simplify briefing and discovery
`
`Ericsson agrees to take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding, absent
`
`termination of the original petitioner as a party. Specifically, Ericsson agrees to the
`
`following conditions regarding the joined proceeding, so long as Microsoft remains
`
`an active party in the joined proceeding:
`
`• All filings by Ericsson in the joined proceeding shall be consolidated with
`
`the filings of Microsoft unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not
`
`involve Microsoft;
`
`
`in this case, signed by a librarian with the law firm Haynes and Boone, LLP, the
`
`law firm of Petitioner’s counsel in this case, with dates of access updated
`
`accordingly.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`• Ericsson shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board in the Microsoft IPR, or introduce any argument or
`
`discovery not already introduced by Microsoft;
`
`• Ericsson shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and
`
`Microsoft concerning discovery and/or depositions;
`
`• At deposition, Ericsson shall not receive any direct examination, cross
`
`examination, or redirect time beyond that permitted in this proceeding for
`
`Microsoft alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between
`
`Patent Owner and Microsoft.
`
`See Apple, IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 at 7–8 (granting a motion for joinder where
`
`the movant proposed the above limitations on its role as understudy); see also Intel
`
`Corp., IPR2018-01352, Paper 11 at 4–5 (granting a motion for joinder with such
`
`limitations on the understudy).
`
`
`
`Ericsson would assume a primary role only if Microsoft ceased participation
`
`in the proceeding. Otherwise, Ericsson would remain in its “understudy” role
`
`throughout the proceeding. The Board has consistently found that the acceptance
`
`of an “understudy” role removes any undue complications or delay that might
`
`allegedly result from joinder. See, e.g., Apple, IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 at 6–8
`
`(granting motion for joinder where the movant presented a substantively identical
`
`petition and agreed to take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding); Intel
`9
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`Corp., IPR2018-01352, Paper 11 at 3–5 (same); Sony Corp., IPR2015-01353,
`
`Paper 11 at 6–7. As such, this factor also favors joinder.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the reasons above, Ericsson respectfully requests that the Board
`
`(1) institute Ericsson’s concurrently filed Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,016,676; and (2) grant joinder with Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc
`
`2017 LLC, Case No. IPR2019-01116.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/J. Andrew Lowes/
`J. Andrew Lowes
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 40,706
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Phone: (972) 680-7557
`andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Clint Wilkins
`Registration No. 62,448
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Phone: (972) 739-6927
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Angela Oliver
`Registration No. 73,271
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Phone: (202) 654-4552
`angela.oliver.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`Case No. IPR2020-00376 (U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and
`
`42.105(b) on the Patent Owner on January 3, 2020 by filing a copy of this
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) TO
`
`RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2019-01116 through the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board End to End and sending of a copy of the same via pre-paid,
`
`Federal Express overnight delivery at the correspondence address of record for
`
`U.S. Patent 7,016,676:
`
`Philips Intellectual Property & Standards
`465 Columbus Avenue, Suite 340
`Valhalla, NY 10595
`
`Courtesy copies were also sent via pre-paid, Federal Express overnight
`
`delivery to the following counsels of record in the related IPR2019-01116:
`
`Petitioner’s Counsel
`
`
`Derrick W. Toddy
`Andrew M. Mason
`Todd M. Siegel
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon, 97204
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Counsel
`
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett A. Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Ste. 120-324
`Southlake, Texas 76092
`
`By: /J. Andrew Lowes/
`J. Andrew Lowes
` Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 40,706
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
