`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01291
`Patent 10,562,077
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONER’S CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`On July 30, 2021, Apple filed a Conditional Motion for Joinder (Pap.
`
`4)(“Motion”) to Samsung, et al., v. GUI Global Products, Ltd., IPR2021-00337 (“the
`
`337 Proceeding”). In the Motion, Apple requested that joinder be granted “if, and
`
`only if, the Board has previously denied institution of Apple Inc., v. GUI Global
`
`Products, Ltd., IPR2021-00472 (‘the 472 Proceeding’).” Pap. 4 at 1 (original
`
`emphasis). On August 13, 2021, the Board instituted review in the 472 Proceeding,
`
`rendering unmet the necessary condition for joinder expressed in Apple’s pending
`
`Motion. On August 30, 2021, GUI filed a Response contending “that joinder is
`
`appropriate notwithstanding that Apple’s condition for requesting the same has not
`
`been met.” Pap. 8 at 3.
`
`Following GUI’s Response, Apple conferred with GUI regarding the
`
`possibility of Apple filing a renewed joinder motion that would instead be
`
`conditioned on harmonization of timing between the respective oral hearings and/or
`
`final written decisions of the 472 Proceeding and the 337 Proceeding, so as to avoid
`
`issues of estoppel that might otherwise arise in connection with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(e)(1). GUI opposed the proposed alignment of oral hearings, which it said
`
`“would cause a ripple effect and shift all the other dates earlier in the schedule,”1 but
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner will provide documentation of the email exchange at the Board’s request.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`GUI did not respond when asked whether GUI would oppose alignment of only the
`
`final written decisions. On September 14, 2021, Apple approached the Board by
`
`email with its request to file a renewed joinder motion. On September 20, 2021, the
`
`Board declined to authorize such a motion, and instead authorized Apple to “address
`
`issues raised in Patent Owner’s Responses to Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for
`
`Joinder in Replies, which are due on September 30, 2021.” Apple replies as follows.
`
`II. ARGUMENT AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`But for the fact that the condition for requesting joinder expressed in Apple’s
`
`pending Motion has not been met, Apple and GUI agree that “joinder is appropriate”
`
`(Paper 8 at 3), in the sense that all of joinder’s other requirements are satisfied. See
`
`Paper 4 at 8-14; Paper 8 at 3-9. The parties diverge as to whether unconditioned
`
`joinder of Apple as a party to the 337 Proceeding would be appropriate in view of
`
`the 472 Proceeding’s institution. GUI “opposes the conditional nature of Apple’s
`
`motion” and contends joinder should occur “notwithstanding that Apple’s condition
`
`for requesting [the] same has not been met.” Paper 8 at 1, 3. As explained in more
`
`detail below, however, unconditioned joinder is potentially prejudicial to Apple.
`
`As such, consistent with GUI’s request that Apple be a joined as a party to the
`
`337 Proceeding if the Board institutes the IPR2021-01291 petition, Apple hereby
`
`augments the unmet condition stated in Apple’s pending Motion with the following
`
`additional condition by which joinder may be achieved: Apple respectfully requests
`
`2
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`that the Board institute review of IPR2021-01291 and grant Apple’s pending Motion
`
`if, and only if, the Board will align in time the issuance of final written decisions in
`
`the 337 Proceeding and the 472 Proceeding, where alignment is achieved only if the
`
`final written decision of the 472 Proceeding issues concurrent with or in advance of
`
`the final written decision of the 337 Proceeding. In conditioning joinder in this way,
`
`Apple seeks to avoid a scenario in which Apple might be estopped under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(e)(1) from maintaining the 472 Proceeding, and in which the 472 Proceeding
`
`might potentially be terminated prior to issuance of a final written decision.
`
`A. Unconditioned Joinder Is Potentially Prejudicial to Apple
`GUI argues that “not joining [Apple] with the 337 Proceeding would be
`
`contrary to the requirement of ensuring just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
`
`these proceedings.” Paper 8 at 1 (citing 37 C.F.R. §42.1(b)). But GUI fails to
`
`address the potential prejudice posed to Apple and to the instituted 472 Proceeding
`
`by estoppel under § 315(e)(1), if Apple were joined as a party to the 337 Proceeding,
`
`and if the 337 Proceeding’s final written decision were to issue in advance of that of
`
`the 472 Proceeding. See Facebook Inc., et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al., IPR2017-
`
`01427, Paper 30 at 4-6 (May 29, 2018) (finding petitioner Facebook estopped from
`
`maintaining inter partes review on claims addressed by an earlier final written
`
`decision in a proceeding to which Facebook was joined), aff’d, Uniloc 2017 LLC v.
`
`Facebook Inc., 989 F.3d 1018, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`Unconditioned joinder would open the door to an estoppel scenario similar
`
`but not identical to that of Facebook, which would prevent Apple from participating
`
`in the instituted 472 Proceeding in which Apple is the sole petitioner. Unlike
`
`Facebook, that estoppel might yield subsequent termination of the 472 Proceeding
`
`prior to a final written decision on the merits, a result that would be counter to 37
`
`CFR § 42.1’s goal of securing a “just … resolution of every proceeding.”
`
`B. Apple’s Reasonable Condition on Joinder is Fair to Both Parties
`Conditioning joinder on the alignment in time of final written decisions would
`
`promote the parties’ shared interest in joinder without prejudice to either party, while
`
`also preventing the unnecessary morass of an estoppel issue ripening in the 472
`
`Proceeding. This condition can be implemented without prejudice to GUI because
`
`the statutory deadline for a final written decision in the 337 Proceeding (July, 2,
`
`2022) is only 1.5 months ahead of the corresponding deadline in the 472 Proceeding
`
`(August 13, 2022). Indeed, as shown in the table below, each proceeding can
`
`otherwise progress as presently scheduled, with respective oral hearings on April 12,
`
`2022 (337 Proceeding) and May 19, 2022 (472 Proceeding).
`
`Proceeding
`
`Filing
`
`Institution Hearing
`
`FWD Deadline
`
`IPR2021-00337 12/29/2020
`
`7/2/2021
`
`4/12/2022
`
`7/2/2022
`
`IPR2021-00472
`
`2/5/2021
`
`8/13/2021 5/19/2022
`
`8/13/2022
`
`GUI’s concern of “shift[ing] all the other dates earlier in the schedule” is
`
`4
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`resolved by simply leaving those other dates in place. Further, GUI would not be
`
`prejudiced by receiving a final written decision in the 472 Proceeding earlier than
`
`scheduled. And GUI has already confirmed that the other aspects of joinder are fair
`
`and “appropriate.” See Paper 8 at 1 (“Joinder with the 337 Proceeding is appropriate
`
`because…”), 3-9. For example, “[w]ith Apple in an ‘understudy’ role, the parties
`
`can comply with the trial schedule assigned to the 337 Proceeding without needing
`
`any duplicative efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner.” Id. at 7-8.
`
`Moreover, in addition to ensuring that Apple could continue “with its 472
`
`Proceeding and could advance its own interests therein” “throughout the entire
`
`progress of the 337 Proceeding” (as GUI states in its Response at 8), joinder based
`
`on the additional condition expressed in this Reply would ensure that Apple is not
`
`estopped from maintaining the 472 Proceeding through final written decision.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Apple respectfully submits that unconditioned joinder would be inconsistent
`
`with 37 CFR § 42.1’s goal of “securing the just … resolution of every proceeding,”
`
`but that joinder conditioned as expressed in this Reply would promote the shared
`
`interests of the parties in securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`IPR proceeding currently pending with respect to the ’077 patent. Accordingly,
`
`consistent with the aims expressed in GUI’s Response, Apple respectfully requests
`
`joinder based on the additional condition expressed in this Reply.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated September 30, 2021
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Andrew B. Patrick/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Andrew B. Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`Roberto Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`Kenneth Wayne Darby Jr., Reg. No. 65,068
`Kim Leung, Reg. No. 64,399
`
`(Control No. IPR2021-01291)
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on September 30,
`
`2021, a complete and entire copy of this Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to
`
`Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder was provided via email to the Patent
`
`Owner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as follows:
`
`John J. Edmonds, Reg. No. 56,184
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`2150 N. First St., Suite 420
`San Jose, CA 95131
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Stephen F. Schlather, Reg. No. 45,081
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(617) 956-5938
`
`