`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XILINX, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
` &
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) proposed a silent understudy role in
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01449 (the Intel IPR) with no new issues, briefing, or discovery
`
`regarding patentability of the ’867 Patent. Unable to dispute these points, Patent
`
`Owner’s Opposition (Paper 7) attempts to complicate an otherwise routine matter by
`
`contending that the one-year time bar precludes joinder because Amazon is an
`
`unnamed RPI or privy. Patent Owner is wrong on both counts. Amazon is not
`
`Petitioner’s RPI/privy, and joinder is an exception to the time bar. Patent Owner’s
`
`suggestion that joinder necessarily will infect the Intel IPR with a new RPI/privity
`
`issue is also wrong. If Patent Owner raises that ineffectual issue in the Intel IPR, it
`
`will be because Patent Owner chose to do so, not because joinder imposed the issue.
`
`Petitioner requests the following relief: (1) a finding that the time bar does not
`
`preclude or impede joinder; (2) a finding that joinder will not negatively impact the
`
`Intel IPR; (3) a rejection of Patent Owner’s discovery requests as premised on a
`
`fundamental misunderstanding of the time bar; and (4) a show cause order requiring
`
`Patent Owner to explain how a POPR will not unjustly delay joinder after the Board
`
`considers the RPI/privity and time bar issues raised in the Opposition.
`
`II. DENIAL OF JOINDER IS UNWARRANTED
`A. The Time Bar Does Not Preclude or Impede Joinder
`1.
`The time bar is irrelevant because Amazon is not an RPI/privy
`The undisputed operative facts portray a straightforward customer-supplier
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`relationship between Petitioner and Amazon, not an RPI or privy relationship.
`
`Petitioner is a supplier of Amazon for certain FPGA products. On October
`
`18, 2017, Patent Owner sued Amazon for direct infringement of the ’867 Patent
`
`based on the custom manner in which Amazon chooses to configure Petitioner’s
`
`products. See EX1019, 12-16, 26-27, 34-43. Patent Owner deliberately chose not
`
`to name Petitioner in this suit, despite full knowledge of the customer-supplier
`
`relationship between Amazon and Petitioner. Id. Patent Owner also chose not to
`
`accuse Petitioner after demanding documents from Petitioner via subpoena in 2018.
`
`See EX1024, 10-11. Amazon, the only party accused of infringement at the time,
`
`petitioned for IPR of the ’867 Patent in July 2018 (Case No. IPR2018-01395).
`
`On April 30, 2020, Patent Owner sued Petitioner on a new theory that
`
`Petitioner’s FPGA products, separate and apart from their unique deployment by
`
`Amazon, directly infringe the ’867 Patent. EX1020, 4-7, 12-13. Patent Owner’s
`
`surprise suit came years after it first became aware of Petitioner’s accused products.
`
`Petitioner reasonably relied on Patent Owner’s prolonged silence as confirmation
`
`that Patent Owner was accusing Amazon’s customization and not Petitioner’s
`
`products in general. But Patent Owner was really just lying in wait. Patent Owner’s
`
`surprise suit is why Petitioner did not initiate an IPR sooner and why Petitioner
`
`presently seeks joinder. Petitioner did not communicate, much less coordinate, with
`
`Amazon in any way regarding the filing of this IPR or regarding joinder.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`The Board’s precedent makes clear that an RPI relationship does not manifest
`
`from a mere pre-existing relationship with a non-party who will benefit tangentially
`
`from invalidation of the challenged claims. See RPX Corp. v. Applications in
`
`Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 at 30-31 (Oct. 2, 2020)
`
`(precedential) (“The inquiry does not end there[.]”). An RPI relationship further
`
`requires that the petitioner “can be said to be representing [the non-party’s]
`
`interest.” Id. at 31. Here, these critical puzzle pieces are missing.
`
`Petitioner’s actions at the PTAB are consistent with a party representing its
`
`own interests and nothing more. For one, Petitioner did not seek IPR of the ’867
`
`Patent until after Patent Owner’s surprise suit. Timing aside, the joinder mechanism
`
`corroborates that Petitioner is not representing Amazon. Amazon does not need
`
`Petitioner to act for it. Nothing prevents Amazon from pursuing joinder itself. See
`
`35 U.S.C. 315(b)-(c) (noting joinder as an exception to the one-year time bar); 35
`
`U.S.C. 315(e)(1) (limiting IPR estoppel to petitioners that receive a final decision).
`
`Patent Owner turns a blind eye to the plain fact that its own litigation tactics
`
`are the impetus for Petitioner’s Joinder Motion. And Patent Owner’s circumstantial
`
`reasoning to support its RPI allegation strains credulity. First, Patent Owner
`
`contends that Petitioner and Amazon devised a “divide-and-conquer strategy”
`
`because Petitioner previously sought IPR of U.S. 9,153,311, one out of five patents
`
`asserted against Amazon. See Opp., 3; EX1019, 4. But there is a simpler
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`explanation than Patent Owner’s conspiracy theory: The ’311 Patent’s claims are
`
`different from those of the ’867 Patent, which led Petitioner to conduct a different
`
`analysis. For example, Petitioner was aware of prior art describing its FPGA
`
`products and construed that art as invalidating the ’311 Patent. This fact made
`
`petitioning for IPR of the ’311 Patent efficient and inexpensive. To be clear, though,
`
`Petitioner did not expect Patent Owner to assert either patent, otherwise Petitioner
`
`would have searched for additional art and also petitioned for IPR of the ’867 Patent.
`
`Next, Patent Owner infers an RPI relationship based on a supposed existence
`
`of an indemnity obligation between Petitioner and Amazon. Opp., 4. The mere
`
`existence of such an obligation is irrelevant, though. The relevant question is
`
`whether indemnity is driving Petitioner to pursue joinder. It is not. The Amazon
`
`case has been stayed for years, and Petitioner has little concern about any potential
`
`indemnity claim. Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is entirely responsive to Patent
`
`Owner’s surprise suit. Again, Petitioner has never discussed this with Amazon.
`
`Patent Owner further contends that coordination between Petitioner and
`
`Amazon is sufficient to infer an RPI relationship. Opp., 5-6. No so. Again, the
`
`simple explanation is the right one. Petitioner and Amazon have coordinated on
`
`technical matters because Amazon is a customer and because Patent Owner’s suit
`
`against Amazon involves Petitioner’s products. This fact lends no support to Patent
`
`Owner’s conclusion that Petitioner somehow represents Amazon’s interests.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`
`Amazon is not Petitioner’s RPI.
`
`Amazon, an arms-length customer of Petitioner, is also not Petitioner’s privy.
`
`In other words, it cannot be said that Petitioner has had a “full and fair opportunity
`
`to litigate” invalidity through Amazon. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical
`
`Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Taylor v. Sturgell factors bear
`
`this out. See 533 U.S. 880, 894-94 (2008).
`
`(1) an agreement between the parties to be bound: No such agreement exists.
`
`(2) pre-existing substantive legal relationships between the parties: As
`
`discussed, while Amazon is Petitioner’s customer, the case against Amazon involves
`
`customizations to Petitioner’s products made by Amazon. Petitioner has not taken
`
`any steps to indemnify Amazon nor indicated to Amazon that it would do so.
`
`(3) adequate representation by the named party: Amazon never represented
`
`Petitioner concerning the ’867 Patent. Patent Owner sued the parties separately on
`
`different infringement theories over two years apart.
`
`(4) the non-party’s control of the prior litigation: Amazon has no control
`
`over Petitioner’s Joinder Motion. Likewise, Petitioner had no control over
`
`Amazon’s Petition. The same is true in the two lawsuits Patent Owner filed.
`
`(5) where the non-party acts as a proxy for the named party: As discussed,
`
`Petitioner and Amazon are exclusively representing their own interests.
`
`(6) where special statutory schemes foreclose successive litigation by the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`non-party: Neither Amazon nor Petitioner is barred/estopped from pursuing joinder.
`
`2.
`
`An RPI/privy relationship does not invoke the time bar or
`otherwise support discretionary denial of joinder
`Even if Amazon were an unnamed RPI or privy (it isn’t), the one-year time
`
`bar would not preclude Petitioner’s Motion because joinder is an exception to the
`
`time bar. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(b)-(c). The Federal Circuit stated this principle
`
`unambiguously in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321,
`
`1333 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See also LG Elecs. Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01530,
`
`Paper 8 at 7 (Mar. 3, 2020) (“the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) time bar does not apply to a
`
`request for joinder”); Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
`
`IPR2020-01072, Paper 12 at 6, n9 (Sep. 1, 2020) (similar).
`
`A hypothetical RPI or privy relationship with Amazon also would not favor
`
`discretionary denial of Petitioner’s Joinder Motion. Patent Owner is flat wrong to
`
`suggest that “when a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) exists, the Board will only
`
`exercise its discretion to grant joinder under § 315(c) in limited circumstances.”
`
`Opp., 4 (citing Proppant Express Investments, LLC, et al., v. Oren Tech., LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 at 11 (March 13, 2019) (precedential)). Patent Owner
`
`misapplies Proppant Express by expanding its holding beyond the issues
`
`adjudicated. As other panels have noted, “[b]ecause the present Petition does not
`
`seek same party or issue joinder, the Board’s concerns in Proppant Express do not
`
`apply here.” LG Elecs. Inc. v. CyWee Group Ltd., IPR2019-01203, Paper 12 at 47-
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`48 (Dec. 17, 2019); see also Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. SecureWave Storage Sols.,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-0139, Paper 12 at 14 (Mar. 23, 2020) (similar).
`
`Regardless, even if there were a higher discretionary bar for joining time-
`
`barred parties (there isn’t), this case would easily clear it. Multiple strong reasons
`
`weigh in favor of joinder. First, Patent Owner purposefully withheld its
`
`infringement allegations against Petitioner until after Amazon’s time bar, and Patent
`
`Owner should not be permitted to “wield [its] litigation activities as a shield.”
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC, IPR2018-01554, Paper 9 at 30 (Feb.
`
`13, 2019). Second, the ’867 Patent is reasonably likely to be invalid, and joinder
`
`reduces the probability of premature termination precluding a final written decision.
`
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’867 Patent’s claims against several different entities,
`
`and a final decision on validity will serve the public interest. Third, joinder will
`
`attach the § 315(e)(2) estoppel on the ’867 Patent to Petitioner before any future
`
`district court trial and potentially preserve future judicial resources.1
`
`B.
`Joinder Need Not Introduce New Issues Into the Intel IPR
`The Board should not allow Patent Owner to prevent joinder by threatening
`
`to disrupt the Intel IPR with its contrived RPI/privity argument. As discussed,
`
`whether Amazon is an unnamed RPI or privy is of minimal importance to the
`
`Board’s decision on joinder. See supra § II.A.2. And yet, if Patent Owner is
`
`
`1 Patent Owner recently withdrew its infringement allegations without prejudice.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`dissatisfied with the Board’s decision, rehearing is the appropriate tool to voice that
`
`concern. Rehearing would occur in this proceeding, not the Intel IPR. Patent Owner
`
`could also appeal the Board’s joinder decision. But a proceeding at the Federal
`
`Circuit would not disrupt the Intel IPR at the PTAB.
`
`Amazon’s RPI/privy status will be even less significant in the Intel IPR after
`
`the Board’s joinder decision. There is no statutory requirement for a petitioner to
`
`list its privies, and the typical remedy when the Board finds an RPI left unnamed in
`
`good faith is simply for the petitioner to update its mandatory notices. See Mayne
`
`Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2019); SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11
`
`at 18 (Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential). The fact that Patent Owner may choose in the
`
`Intel IPR to press an RPI/privity argument with no bearing on whether the Board
`
`invalidates the ’867 Patent should not affect joinder. The relevant inquiry is how
`
`joinder would impact the Intel IPR, not whether Patent Owner will attempt to create
`
`a sideshow in the Intel IPR if displeased with joinder. Petitioner took affirmative
`
`steps to ensure that the impact of joinder will be minimal. See Mot., 7-8. It is telling
`
`that Patent Owner does not identify any negative impact beyond its own decision to
`
`“explore[]” non-dispositive issues. Opp., 7-8.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS UNNECESSARY
`
`Additional discovery is not “necessary in the interest of justice,” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`316(a)(5), when the requesting party relies on speculation, misunderstands the law,
`
`and fails to tailor its requests narrowly. The Garmin factors reveal Patent Owner’s
`
`discovery plea as one the Board should reject. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 6-7 (Mar. 5, 2013) (precedential).
`
`A.
`Factor 1: Less Than a Possibility and Mere Allegation
`“The party requesting discovery should already be in possession of evidence
`
`tending to show beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered.”
`
`Garmin at 6. But speculation about Petitioner’s motives is all Patent Owner can
`
`muster. Patent Owner fails to provide even a scintilla of evidentiary support for its
`
`claim that “Xilinx would have had no reason to challenge either the ’311 [P]atent or
`
`the current ’867 [P]atent other than to comply with its contractual obligations [to
`
`Amazon].” Opp., 10. That is because no such evidence exists. As discussed,
`
`Petitioner had a very good reason to challenge the ’311 Patent years ago (it knew of
`
`prior art) and has a separate very good reason to now challenge the ’867 Patent
`
`(Patent Owner’s surprise suit). See supra § II.A.1. This straightforward explanation
`
`is far more plausible than Patent Owner’s “divide-and-conquer” fiction.
`
`Worse than its lack of evidence, Patent Owner utterly fails to establish that
`
`additional discovery would produce “useful” information. According to Patent
`
`Owner, “the requested discovery is useful because…if Amazon is a RPI or privy of
`
`Xilinx…institution is barred based on the express and unambiguous language of §
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`315(b).” Opp., 13-14. But Patent Owner has it wrong. See supra § II.A.2. The
`
`time bar is irrelevant. Information supporting an irrelevant argument is not “useful.”
`
`B.
`Factor 3: Other Means to Generate Equivalent Information
`Patent Owner broadly contends that it “is not able to obtain the requested
`
`information through any other reasonable means.” Opp., 14. That assertion is hard
`
`to believe given Patent Owner’s access to Amazon’s and Petitioner’s documents in
`
`more expansive district court discovery, which Patent Owner does not deny.
`
`C.
`Factor 5: Overly Burdensome Requests
`Patent Owner’s discovery requests are “overly burdensome” because they are
`
`not “responsibly tailored.” Garmin at 7. Request (2) is particularly egregious. Its
`
`scope includes four years’ worth of “any communications between Amazon and
`
`Xilinx,” which would consist almost entirely of technical discussions that have no
`
`connection with invalidity or IPR of the ’867 Patent. Opp., 9. This is plainly an
`
`attempt to gather infringement-related documents for use in the district court case.
`
`Such documents are not relevant to Patent Owner’s RPI/privity allegations. The
`
`scope of Request (3) is also problematic because it is not limited to the ’867 Patent
`
`and the accused FPGA products. The Board should not grant Patent Owner’s
`
`requests at all. But if the Board is so inclined, the requests should be narrowed
`
`significantly to just address discussions (if any) regarding the PTAB.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Kenneth Wayne Darby Jr./
`
` David M. Hoffman, Reg. No. 54,174
` Kenneth Wayne Darby Jr., Reg. No. 65,068
` Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26191
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (877) 769-7945
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00633
`Attorney Docket No: 42653-0026IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on May 3, 2021,
`
`a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Reply To Patent Owner’s
`
`Opposition To Petitioner’s Motion For Joinder & Petitioner’s Opposition To Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion For Additional Discovery was provided by email, to the Patent
`
`Owner by serving the correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`Jay P. Kesan
`DIMUROGINSBERG, PC
`DGKEYIP GROUP
`1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`
`Ari Rafilson, Reg. No. 58,693
`SHORE CHAN LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`
`Email: jkesan@dimuro.com
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`