`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE
`REGARDING MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`RANKING .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PETITIONS, WHY THEY ARE MATERIAL,
`AND WHY ALL SHOULD BE INSTITUTED ................................................................. 2
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`US. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing two petitions challenging different claims of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,039,435 (“the ’934 patent”)- “To aid the Board in determining”
`
`why “more than one petition is necessary,” Petitioner provides the information
`
`below. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) (November 2019) at
`
`59—60.
`
`11.
`
`RANKING
`
`While both petitions are meritorious and justified as explained below,
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board consider the petitions in the following order:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`Petition 1
`
`1—3 and 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`G—round1: Claims 1-3 Anticipated by Baiker
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3 and 6 Obvious over
`
`Baiker and Werling
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-3 Anticipated by Irvin
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-3 and 6 Obvious over
`
`Irvin and Myllyméiki
`
`1 While Petitioner is providing this ranking per the PTAB’s guidance in the
`
`consolidated TPG, Petitioner believes ranking in this instance is inappropriate and/or
`
`unnecessary since each petition addresses a different claim. That is, there is no
`
`overlap amongst the challenged claims in the two petitions.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petition 2 8
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1-3 Obvious over Bodin
`and Irvin
`
`Ground 6: Claim 6 Obvious over Bodin,
`Irvin, and Myllymäki
`
`Ground 1: Claim 8 Anticipated by Baiker
`
`Ground 2: Claim 8 Obvious over Baiker and
`Werling
`
`Ground 3: Claim 8 Anticipated by Irvin
`
`Ground 4: Claim 8 Obvious over Irvin and
`Myllymäki
`
`Ground 5: Claim 8 Obvious over Bodin and
`Irvin
`
`III. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PETITIONS, WHY THEY ARE
`MATERIAL, AND WHY ALL SHOULD BE INSTITUTED
`As indicated in Petition 1, it is being submitted concurrently with a motion for
`
`joinder. Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder of Petition 1 with
`
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC, IPR2019-01365 (“the ZTE IPR”
`
`or “the ZTE proceeding”), which the Board instituted on February 11, 2020. Petition
`
`1 is substantially identical to the petition in the ZTE IPR; it contains the same
`
`grounds (based on the same prior art combinations and supporting evidence) against
`
`the same claims (claims 1-3 and 6). Petition 2 challenges a single claim (claim 8)
`
`which is not challenged in the ZTE IPR and thus not included in Petition 1. Thus,
`
`the current circumstances are consistent with the guidance in the consolidated TPG,
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`which states that “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which
`
`more than one petition may be necessary.” See PTAB Consolidated TPG at 59-60.
`
`In any event, the petitions are materially different because each petition
`
`addresses a different claim. And the Board’s decision with respect to the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims in each petition would be materially different
`
`because the decision would address the validity of a different claim in each case.
`
`Thus, denying one petition over the other would leave one or more challenged claims
`
`unaddressed.
`
`The fact that another IPR petition involving claim 8 of the ’435 patent is
`
`pending in LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC, IPR2020-00319
`
`(“the LG IPR” or “the LG proceeding”) does not weigh against institution of Petition
`
`2. The LG IPR involves a different petitioner and different prior art combinations.
`
`Moreover, there has been no preliminary response filed or institution decision issued
`
`in the LG IPR. Thus, Petitioner could not have used patent owner’s arguments or
`
`the Board’s decision as a roadmap to formulate its challenge to claim 8. Indeed,
`
`given that Petitioner cannot predict whether the LG IPR will be instituted at this
`
`juncture (and thus give Petitioner an opportunity to consider whether to join the LG
`
`IPR), Petitioner has been diligent in filing Petition 2 prior to the filing of any
`
`preliminary response in the LG IPR to avoid any implication that Petitioner is
`
`benefiting from the developments in the LG IPR.
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`Finally, both the Administrative Procedures Act and due process weigh
`
`against denying institution of either petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) or 325(d).
`
`Indeed, the two petitions here do not constitute an abuse of the process because this
`
`is Petitioner’s first challenge to any claims of the ’435 patent and as discussed above,
`
`both petitions are justified. And given that both petitions are based on the same prior
`
`art and are limited to either (a) already instituted grounds (Petition 1) or (b) a single
`
`challenged claim based on the same combinations included in Petition 1 (Petition 2),
`
`institution of both petitions would not implicate any of the concerns regarding the
`
`Board’s time and resources required if trial is instituted in both petitions.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons given above, the Board should institute both petitions.
`
`Dated: March 10, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:/Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 10, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing Petitioner’s Notice Regarding Multiple Petitions to be served via
`
`express mail on the Patent Owner at the following correspondence address of record
`
`as listed on PAIR:
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED
`4380 Ziegler Road
`Fort Collins CO 80525
`
`
`In addition, courtesy copies were served electronically upon the following
`
`counsel for Patent Owner in the concurrent district court litigation:
`
`
`
`Paul J. Skiermont
`Sadaf R. Abdullah
`Steven W. Hartsell
`Christopher Hodge
`Steven J. Udick
`Alexander E Gasser
`Joseph M Ramirez
`bnr_sdteam@skiermontderby.com
`Mieke K. Malmberg
`mmalmberg@skiermontderby.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`