`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`The Board maintains discretion to grant same-party joinder based on the
`
`abrogation of Windy City by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thryv v. Click-to-
`
`Call Techs., 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) and the Board’s precedential opinion in
`
`Proppant Express Invs. v. Oren Techs., IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`
`13, 2019). The Board should use its discretion to grant Roku’s Motion for Joinder
`
`because granting joinder will promote fairness and the efficient resolution of the
`
`validity of the ’853 patent.
`
`I.
`
`UEI’s Arguments Regarding Thryv Are Meritless.
`UEI argues that Thryv does not impact abrogate Windy City because it is
`
`only applicable to decisions under § 315(b) and not § 315(c). UEI is wrong. Thrvy
`
`is applicable to all decisions that are closely related to the institution decision—
`
`including § 315(c). Thryv therefore abrogates Windy City as decisions under
`
`315(c), like 315(b), are closely related to institution.
`
`UEI also alleges that Thryv does not abrogate Windy City because Windy
`
`City is related only to managing an already instituted decision and not to an
`
`institution decision. UEI focuses on the wrong petition. A decision under § 315(c)
`
`is closely related to the Board’s decision to institute the newly filed petition. See
`
`USPTO Supplemental Brief, Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`
`CAFC-18-1400, Doc. ID. No. 106, 10 (June 10, 2020).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`Not only are UEI’s arguments misinformed and inaccurate, UEI blatantly
`
`ignores the positions advocated by the USPTO in its supplemental brief in
`
`Facebook v. Windy City. UEI had full knowledge of the USPTO’s positions but
`
`failed to consider or address any of the arguments or positions raised by the
`
`USPTO.
`
`II. Granting joinder promotes fairness and prevents undue prejudice.
`UEI alleges that Roku’s Motion for Joinder does not implicate Proppant’s
`
`fairness concerns because it is the “direct consequence of [Roku’s] own intentional
`
`omissions.” Paper 6, Opp., 10. However, UEI mischaracterizes Roku’s alleged
`
`“omissions.” UEI’s inaccurate representations of Roku’s omissions in the First
`
`Petition are insufficient to negate the fairness concerns raised by UEI’s calculated
`
`actions to insulate their claims from an IPR challenge.
`
`III. Granting joinder will not disrupt the ongoing schedule nor create a
`substantial burden for UEI.
`UEI argues that Roku’s Motion for Joinder should be denied because
`
`granting the motion would disrupt the ongoing IPR proceeding and result in a
`
`substantial duplication of effort to address the new claims and issues. Opp., 12.
`
`UEI is wrong on both counts.
`
`Roku has made several concessions to minimize any impact on scheduling.
`
`Paper 2, Mot., 9-11. Additionally, Roku has attempted to work with UEI to
`
`minimize any potential disruptions in scheduling. In light of the USPTO’s position
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`that it could entertain same-party joinder, Roku reached out to UEI and proposed
`
`minor changes in the schedule of Roku’s First Petition. Roku’s proposed
`
`adjustments included delaying the deposition of Dr. Samuel Russ, while the parties
`
`worked through the scheduling proposal. UEI refused to postpone the deposition or
`
`adjust the schedule. EX1052, 9:7-15:19. Rather than working to maximize
`
`efficiency and prevent wasting the Board’s time and resources, UEI seeks to
`
`exacerbate potential scheduling differences to increase the likelihood that Roku’s
`
`Motion for Joinder will be denied. Having refused to work with Roku to minimize
`
`the impact of a joined petition, UEI cannot now be heard to complain about the
`
`potential distance between the schedules.
`
`The Board, of course, has the authority to make adjustments to
`
`accommodate joinder. See Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Tech. & Bioresources, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00556, Paper 19 (Jul. 9, 2014) (adjusting the due date of the POR to
`
`accommodate joinder). To further minimize scheduling conflicts, the Board is also
`
`able to accelerate its institution deadline. And in the unlikely event that joinder
`
`does impact the schedule of Roku’s First Petition, the Board has the authority to
`
`extend the 1-year decision deadline by six months in the case of joinder under
`
`§ 315(c). See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
`
`Finally, UEI alleges that granting joinder would result in a substantial
`
`duplication of efforts to address the new claims and issues. Opp., 12-13. UEI
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`exaggerates the differences between the petitions. EX1052, 12:14-15:19. Roku’s
`
`Second Petition only challenges four claims, of which only three dependent claims
`
`are newly added. The analysis of independent claim 1, from which all the
`
`challenged claims depend, is identical between Roku’s petitions. As such, Roku’s
`
`Second Petition is identical to its First Petition, except that it substitutes its analysis
`
`of dependent claims 3, 5, and 7 in the First Petition with its analysis of dependent
`
`claims 2, 6, and 8 in its Second Petition. Roku cites identical art in its dependent
`
`claim analysis in the First and Second Petitions. Consequently, UEI is already
`
`intimately familiar with all of the prior art references cited in Roku’s Second
`
`Petition.
`
`Not only does Roku rely on identical prior art in its Second Petition, it uses
`
`the same expert witness, Dr. Samuel Russ, for both petitions. Dr. Russ’s
`
`declaration in the Second Petition is identical to his declaration in the First
`
`Petition, but for the addition of his analysis of the three new dependent claims.
`
`Roku also submitted the same declarations of its two fact witnesses in the Second
`
`Petition. What is more, all of the exhibits Roku submitted in its Second Petition are
`
`identical to the exhibits submitted in its First Petition. Roku’s Second Petition also
`
`proposes the exact same claim construction as its First Petition.
`
`Contrary to UEI’s assertions, Roku’s Petitions are nearly identical. Roku’s
`
`Second Petition merely adds three dependent claims. A Motion for Joinder that
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`does not rely on new art and adds a limited number of claims, e.g., four or fewer,
`
`only has a minor substantive and procedural impact on the instituted proceeding.
`
`Enzymotec Ltd., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19 (Jul. 9, 2014). As such, any burden on
`
`UEI to respond to the Second Petition is, at most, minimal.
`
`IV. Patent Owner’s accusations regarding abuse of process and vexatious
`and harassing intent are unwarranted.
`UEI alleges that Roku’s Petition is “harassing, vexatious, duplicative, and
`
`untimely.” Opp., 1. UEI’s allegations are serious, and if true, sanctionable. See 37
`
`C.F.R. 11.18(b)(2). They are also wholly unwarranted and unfounded. Roku has
`
`not violated any Board rule and Roku’s counsel’s actions fall well within the
`
`bounds of zealous advocacy required on Roku’s behalf. Alleging sanctionable
`
`conduct as a tactical instrument rather than a genuine response to actual
`
`misconduct is itself sanctionable. See Schendel v. Curtis, 83 F.3d 1399, 1406 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996). The Board should not condone such tactics.
`
`V. Conclusion
`UEI has failed to provide a single viable argument for why joinder should be
`
`denied. As such, Roku respectively asks the Board to institute its Second Petition
`
`and grant its Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jon E. Wright/
`
`Jon E. Wright, Reg. No. 50,720
`Attorney for Petitioner Roku, Inc.
`
`
`Date: July 20, 2020
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,716,853
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 20, 2020, a true and correct
`
`
`
`copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER was served
`
`electronically via e-mail in its entirety on the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`S. Benjamin Pleune (Lead Counsel) ben.pleune@alston.com
`Ryan W. Koppelman (Back-up Counsel) ryan.koppelman@alston.com
`Thomas W. Davison (Back-up Counsel) tom.davison@alston.com
`James H. Abe (Back-up Counsel) james.abe@alston.com
`Caleb J. Bean (Back-up Counsel) caleb.bean@alston.com
`Derek S. Neilson (Back-up Counsel) derek.neilson@alston.com
`Nicholas T. Tsui (Back-up Counsel) nick.tsui@alston.com
`Gary Jarosik (Back-up Counsel) jarosikg@gtlaw.com
`James J. Lukas, Jr. (Back-up Counsel) lukasj@gtlaw.com
`Benjamin P. Gilford (Back-up Counsel) gilfordb@gtlaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jon E. Wright/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jon E. Wright, Reg. No. 50,720
`Attorney for Petitioner Roku, Inc.
`
`
`Date: July 20, 2020
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`15213590.1
`
`
`
`