`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2020-01275
`U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2020-00320
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ................................................... 1
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ................... 2
`A.
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................... 2
`B.
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER IS TIMELY ..................................... 2
`C.
`EACH FACTOR WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF JOINDER ....................................... 3
`1.
`Joinder is Appropriate .............................................................. 3
`2.
`Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability .......... 4
`3.
`Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the
`Samsung IPR Trial Schedule ..................................................... 4
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery.......................... 5
`4.
`IV. GENERAL PLASTICS IS INAPPLICABLE ........................................... 7
`V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder,
`
`together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338 (“the
`
`Apple Petition”) filed contemporaneously herewith. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review
`
`and joinder with the inter partes review in Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Solas
`
`OLED, Ltd., IPR2020-00320 (“the Samsung IPR”), which the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (the “Board”) instituted on June 23, 2020. Petitioner’s request for
`
`joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) as it is submitted no later
`
`than one month after the June 23, 2020 institution date of the Samsung IPR. The Apple
`
`Petition is also narrowly tailored to the same claims, prior art, and grounds for
`
`unpatentability that are the subject of the Samsung IPR. In addition, Petitioner is
`
`willing to streamline discovery and briefing.
`
`Petitioner submits that joinder is appropriate because it will not unduly burden
`
`or prejudice the parties to the Samsung IPR while efficiently resolving the question
`
`of the ‘338 Patent’s validity in a single proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On December 18, 2019, Samsung filed a petition for inter partes
`
`review (IPR2020-00320) requesting cancellation of claims 1-3 and 5-13 of the
`
`ʼ338 Patent.
`
`1
`
`
`
`2.
`
`On June 23, 2020, the Board instituted Samsung’s petition for inter
`
`partes review on all proposed grounds, finding that a reasonable likelihood
`
`existed that Samsung’s petition for inter partes review would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of claims 1-3 and 5-13 of the ʼ338 Patent. See IPR2020-00320,
`
`Decision Instituting IPR Review, Paper No. 9.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`a.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of the Board
`
`instituting an original inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In deciding
`
`whether to exercise its discretion and permit joinder, the Board considers factors,
`
`including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the new petition
`
`presents any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what impact, if any, joinder would
`
`have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified. Kyocera Corporation v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper
`
`15 at 4 (April 24, 2013).
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`June 23, 2020 institution decision of the Samsung IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Further, the one-year bar set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply to the
`
`Apple Petition because this Motion for Joinder is filed concurrently with the Apple
`
`Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`c.
`
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder
`
`here. Specifically, the Apple Petition does not present any new grounds of
`
`unpatentability; rather it is substantively identical to the Samsung Petition. Further,
`
`joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are
`
`substantively identical and Petitioner will accept an “understudy” role. See IPR2015-
`
`01353, Decision Instituting IPR Review, Motion for Joinder, paper 11 at 6; (granting
`
`IPR where petitioners requested an “understudy” role); see also IPR2015-01353,
`
`Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 5-7. Lastly, the briefing and discovery will be
`
`simplified by resolving all issues in a single proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate. See IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting
`
`IPR Review, Motion for Joinder, paper 11 at 5-6 (granting institution of IPR and
`
`motion for joinder where petitioners relied “on the same prior art, same arguments,
`
`and same evidence, including the same expert and a substantively identical
`
`declaration.”); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 4- 5.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`1.
`Joinder with the Samsung IPR is appropriate because the Apple Petition
`
`3
`
`
`
`involves the same patent, challenges the same claims, relies on the same expert
`
`declaration, and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art
`
`submitted in the Samsung Petition. Id. The Apple Petition is substantively identical
`
`to the Samsung Petition, containing only minor differences related to formalities of
`
`a different party filing the petition. There are no changes to the facts, citations,
`
`evidence, or arguments presented in the Samsung Petition. Because these
`
`proceedings are substantively identical, good cause exists for joining this proceeding
`
`with the Samsung IPR so that the Board can efficiently resolve all grounds in both
`
`the Apple and Samsung Petitions in a single proceeding. Id.
`
`Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`2.
`The Apple Petition presents the same grounds of unpatentability as the
`
`Samsung Petition.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the
`Samsung IPR Trial Schedule
`
`Because the Apple Petition is substantively identical to the Samsung Petition,
`
`with the same grounds rejecting the same claims as instituted by the Board, there are
`
`no new issues for Patent Owner to address. Due to the same issues being presented
`
`in the Samsung Petition, Patent Owner will not be required to present any additional
`
`responses or arguments. See IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting IPR, Motion for
`
`Joinder, paper 11 at 6 (granting IPR and motion for joinder where “joinder should
`
`4
`
`
`
`not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from Patent Owner beyond that
`
`already required in [the original IPR].”); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion for
`
`Joinder, paper 4 at 5-7. Further, the Patent Owner Preliminary Response already
`
`filed in the Samsung IPR addresses any and all issues in the Apple Petition, since
`
`the issues are substantively identical to the issues of the Samsung Petition. See
`
`IPR2020-00320, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 6.
`
`The Patent Owner Response will also not be negatively impacted because the
`
`issues presented in the Samsung Petition are identical to the issues presented in the
`
`Apple Petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional analysis
`
`or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the Samsung
`
`Petition. Also, because the Apple Petition relies on the same expert and an identical
`
`declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed joined proceeding.
`
`Joinder of this proceeding with the Samsung IPR does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule in any meaningful way. Further, even if a small
`
`adjustment of the trial schedule was necessary, this is already provided for in the rules
`
`and is a routine undertaking by parties in IPR proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`Thus, a slight adjustment in the trial schedule, should one be needed, is not enough
`
`of a reason to deny joining the present Apple Petition with the Samsung IPR.
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`4.
`The Samsung Petition and Apple Petition present substantively identical
`
`5
`
`
`
`grounds of rejection, including the same art combinations against the same claims.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, as described
`
`by the Board:
`
`“(a) all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be consolidated
`with [the filings of the petitioner in the Samsung IPR], unless a filing
`solely concerns issues that do not involve [the petitioner in the
`Samsung IPR]; (b) [Petitioner] shall not be permitted to raise any new
`grounds not already instituted by the Board in the [Samsung IPR], or
`introduce any argument or discovery not already introduced by [the
`petitioner in the Samsung IPR]; (c) [Petitioner] shall be bound by any
`agreement between [Patent Owner] and [the petitioner in the Samsung
`IPR] concerning discovery and/or depositions; and (d) [Petitioner] at
`deposition shall not receive any direct, cross-examination or redirect
`time beyond that permitted for [the petitioner in the Samsung IPR]
`alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between [Patent
`Owner] and [the petitioner in the Samsung IPR].”
`
`IPR2014-00550, paper 38 at 5 (Apr. 10, 2015) (emphasis in original). Petitioner
`
`Apple will assume the primary role only if Samsung ceases to participate in the
`
`Samsung IPR.
`
`By Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and Petitioner
`
`Apple can comply with the current trial schedule and avoid any duplicative efforts
`
`by the Board or the Patent Owner. These steps will minimize any potential
`
`complications or delay that potentially may result by joinder. See IPR2015-01353,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Decision Instituting IPR, paper 11 at 6-7 (granting IPR and motion for joinder
`
`because “joinder would increase efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and
`
`discovery, and would reduce costs and burdens on the parties as well as the Board”
`
`where petitioners agreed to an “understudy” role.); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion
`
`for Joinder, paper 4 at 6-7.
`
`IV. GENERAL PLASTICS IS INAPPLICABLE
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits application of the General Plastic analysis is
`
`inapplicable here. In General Plastic, the Board set forth a series of factors that may
`
`be analyzed for follow-on petitions to help conserve the finite resources of the Board.
`
`Here, both Apple and Samsung submitted separate, independent petitions. In the
`
`current motion, Apple merely seeks to join Samsung’s petition and does not present
`
`any new grounds. As such, Apple respectfully submits that General Plastic does not
`
`apply in this circumstance because Apple would be taking an understudy role and
`
`the Board’s finite resources would not be impacted. Moreover, a joinder petition in
`
`these circumstances is not the type of serial petition to which General Plastic
`
`applies, especially as Apple has not previously filed an IPR against the ’338 Patent.
`
`The PTAB has previously stated that a joinder petition “effectively neutralizes” a
`
`General Plastic analysis. See Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-00580, Paper
`
`13 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 21, 2018) (instituting a joinder petition where joinder
`
`petitioner previously filed a non-instituted IPR, stating joinder petitioner’s joinder
`
`7
`
`
`
`motion agreeing to a passive understudy role “effectively neutraliz[es] the General
`
`Plastic factors”); see also Celltrion, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., IPR2019-01019, Paper
`
`11 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2018) (instituting a joinder petition where joinder petition
`
`previously filed a non-instituted IPR, stating the joinder motion “effectively obviates
`
`any concerns of serial harassment and unnecessary expenditures of resources”).
`
`In the event the Board does analyze the General Plastic factors, those factors
`
`heavily weigh in favor of instituting the present IPR. General Plastic Indus. Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, slip op. at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6,
`
`2017) (Paper 19) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i).
`
`Regarding factor 1, Apple has not previously filed a petition against the ’338
`
`Patent. This factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`The second factor is whether at the time of filing the first petition the petitioner
`
`knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the second petition. This
`
`factor is neutral, if not inapplicable, in the General Plastic analysis. Here, Samsung’s
`
`petition and Apple’s petition share the same prior art because Apple’s Petition is a
`
`“copycat” of Samsung’s petition. Because Apple is merely seeking to join in an
`
`understudy role, the factor is neutral, at best, in determining whether to institute.
`
`The third factor is whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first
`
`petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first
`
`8
`
`
`
`petition. Because this is a Motion for Joinder requesting an understudy role, Apple
`
`is submitting a substantively identical petition and has not added to, or changed, any
`
`of the substantive arguments from the Samsung petition. Moreover, because the
`
`present Petition is submitted as a joinder and Apple will serve an understudy role,
`
`the Petition is not an attempt to harass the Patent Owner or otherwise engage in
`
`serial, tactical filings. Thus, this factor weighs against denial of joinder/institution.
`
`The fourth factor is the length of time elapsed between the time the petitioner
`
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and filing of the second
`
`petition, and the fifth factor is whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation
`
`for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same
`
`claims of the same patent. In the context of a joinder motion where Apple will be
`
`taking an understudy role, these factors are inapplicable.
`
`The sixth factor is the finite resources of the Board. Allowing Apple’s joinder
`
`motion where it will serve in an understudy role will not impact the Board’s
`
`resources beyond those resources the Board dedicates to the instant joinder motion.
`
`The seventh factor is the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a
`
`final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices
`
`institution of review. As noted above, joining Apple should not impact the schedule.
`
`Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`An eighth factor identified by the Board in Shenzhen is the extent to which
`
`9
`
`
`
`the petitioner and any prior petitioner(s) were similarly situated defendants or
`
`otherwise realized a similar-in-time hazard regarding the challenged patent.
`
`Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corp., IPR2018-00898,
`
`Paper 9 at 7, 13-14 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018) (noting “the purpose of proposed Factor 8
`
`is to discourage tactical filing of petitions over time by parties that faced the same
`
`threat at the same time” such that earlier petitions are filed as “test case(s)” to gain
`
`“tactical advantage”). Because Apple’s petition does not introduce any new grounds
`
`of unpatentability and will effectively merge into a single proceeding with
`
`Samsung’s IPR, no such tactical advantage is gained here.
`
`Thus, none of the General Plastic factors weighs against institution and
`
`joinder in this situation.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the factors discussed above, Petitioner Apple respectfully requests
`
`that the Board grant the Apple Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,446,338 and then grant joinder with the Samsung Display Co., Ltd. IPR2020-
`
`00320 proceeding.
`
`Dated: July 22, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
` /s/ Adam P. Seitz
`Adam P. Seitz (Reg. No. 52,206)
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`Paul R. Hart (Reg. No. 59,646)
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5299 DTC Boulevard
`Suite 1340
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the Motion for
`
`Joinder has been served on the Patent Owner via Federal Express or by means at
`
`least as fast and reliable as Federal Express on the below date, at the following
`
`address:
`
`Holtz, Holtz & Volek, PC
`630 Ninth Avenue
`Suite 1010
`New York, NY 10036-3744
`
`With an additional courtesy copy sent to patent owner's litigation counsel:
`
`Gregory S. Dovel
`Sean A. Luner
`Jonas B. Jacobson
`DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
`201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`(310) 656-7066
`
`Marc Fenster
`Reza Mirzaie
`Neil A. Rubin
`Kent N. Shum
`Theresa Troupson
`RUSS AUGUST & RABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Dated: July 22, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
` /s/ Adam P. Seitz
`Adam P. Seitz (Reg. No. 52,206)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`13
`
`