`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”) conditionally moves for joinder with the inter partes
`
`review instituted against U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077 (“the ’077 Patent”) in Samsung,
`
`et al., v. GUI Global Products, Ltd., IPR2021-00337 (“the 337 Proceeding”). This
`
`motion is timely filed within one month of the Board’s July 2, 2021 institution
`
`decision in the 337 Proceeding.
`
`More specifically, Apple respectfully requests that the Board institute review
`
`of IPR2021-01291 based on the concurrently-filed petition and that it grant this
`
`motion if, and only if, the Board has previously denied institution of Apple Inc., v.
`
`GUI Global Products, Ltd., IPR2021-00472 (“the 472 Proceeding”). In making this
`
`request, Apple seeks to ensure that, for each of the four patents that GUI presently
`
`asserts against Apple and Samsung, Apple is party to one (and only one) instituted
`
`inter partes review proceeding, preferably the proceeding inspired by Apple’s initial
`
`filing but otherwise the proceeding inspired by Samsung’s first filing.1 In this way,
`
`consistent with the goals expressed in each of the Board’s NHK, Fintiv, Snap, Sotera,
`
`General Plastic, and Uniloc decisions, Apple seeks to promote a maximally-efficient
`
`
`
`1 Apple is concurrently filing conditional motions for joinder with respect to each of
`
`the IPR2021-01289, IPR2021-01290, and IPR2021-01292 petitions.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`resolution to the dispute between the parties. See, e.g., General Plastic Indus. Co.
`
`v. Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Pap. 19 at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6,
`
`2017)(precedential)(“In exercising discretion…we are mindful of the goals of the
`
`AIA–namely, to improve patent quality and make the patent system more efficient
`
`by the use of post-grant review procedures”); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00019, Pap. 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)(“the Board takes a holistic view of
`
`whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`
`instituting review”).
`
`The parties to the counterpart consolidated district court litigation have
`
`already agreed that, if “all four of Apple’s IPR petitions are instituted”2 then
`
`“Plaintiff would not oppose a motion…by Samsung and Apple to stay the
`
`[counterpart] litigation pending final decisions from the PTAB in all then-
`
`pending…IPRs.” EX1116, 2 (emphasis added). Conversely, GUI has indicated that
`
`it would oppose a motion to stay the counterpart litigation if any of Apple’s
`
`IPR2021-00470, IPR2021-00471, IPR2021-00472, and IPR2021-00473 petitions
`
`are not instituted. Id.; see also EX1115, 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Referring to Apple’s IPR2021-00470, IPR2021-00471, IPR2021-00472, and
`
`IPR2021-00473 petitions, on which institution decisions remain pending.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`Thus, if all four of Apple’s IPR petitions are instituted, Apple’s and
`
`Samsung’s printed publication invalidity grounds would likely be addressed by a
`
`single forum—the PTAB. This is the maximally efficient outcome, and the outcome
`
`that Apple seeks to promote via this conditional motion for joinder. Cf. Snap, Inc.
`
`v. SRK Technology LLC, IPR2020-00820 Pap. 15 at 9, 19 (PTAB Oct. 21,
`
`2020)(precedential); Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019 Pap. 12
`
`at 19-21 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)(precedential).
`
`However, if the Board were to decline to institute Apple’s IPR2021-00472
`
`petition challenging the ’077 Patent, the next-most efficient course of action would
`
`be for the Board to institute review of IPR2021-01291 and grant this motion for
`
`joinder with Samsung’s already-instituted 337 Proceeding. Indeed, the district
`
`court’s Amended Scheduling Order (entered July 16, 2021) contemplates that “if all
`
`of Apple’s IPR Petitions are not instituted,” the parties will brief an opposed motion
`
`to stay. EX1115. As to this less preferred alternative, where Apple is joined to the
`
`337 Proceeding in an understudy role, it remains likely that the district court would
`
`grant a motion for stay, even if opposed by GUI. The consolidated nature of the
`
`counterpart district court litigation combined with the fact that all four of Samsung’s
`
`IPR proceedings have already been instituted heavily favors a stay.3 See EX1102;
`
`
`
`3 The Board instituted each of IPR2021-00335, IPR2021-00336, IPR2021-00337,
`
`3
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`EX1103; EX1104; Memorandum and Order granting motion to stay in Fairfield
`
`Industries Inc. v. Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc., Case H-17-cv-1458 (S.D. Tex. Jan.
`
`2019) at 3 (“A stay of patent litigation is ‘particularly justified when the outcome of
`
`a PTO proceeding is likely to assist the court in determining patent validity or
`
`eliminate the need to try infringement issues.’”); Memorandum and Order in
`
`Onesubsea IP US Ltd. v. FMC Technologies, Inc., Case H-16-cv-0051 (S.D. Tex.
`
`Aug. 2016) at 4 (“The Court finds that a stay of this case pending the completion of
`
`the IPR process will provide the Court and the parties with potentially important
`
`guidance from the patent office, will simplify the case, will avoid a needless waste
`
`of resources, and will prevent inconsistent results between the IPR proceedings and
`
`this lawsuit”).
`
`Thus, while a grant of Apple’s first-filed petitions would maximize the
`
`likelihood of the parties avoiding the unnecessary costs of duplicative litigation in
`
`different forums on the subject of validity over the same prior art grounds, and
`
`decrease the likelihood of potentially inconsistent decisions from different forums
`
`addressing those grounds, the grant of this conditional motion for joinder also would
`
`increase the likelihood (albeit to a lesser extent) of achieving similar goals.
`
`
`
`
`
`and IPR2021-00338 on July 2, 2021.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`On the other hand, if the Board were to deny both of Apple’s petitions against
`
`the ’077 Patent (IPR2021-00472 and IPR2021-01291), Apple would have no choice
`
`but to pursue its printed publication invalidity defenses in district court, separate and
`
`apart from the already-instituted 337 Proceeding.
`
`Against that outcome, institution of one petition or the other in the alternative
`
`would very likely confine adjudication of invalidity grounds based on printed
`
`publication prior art to the PTAB4, and would also very likely result in a stay of the
`
`district court litigation. EX1115, EX1116. The present circumstances therefore
`
`offer a prime opportunity for IPR to serve its intended role as a true alternative to
`
`district court litigation. See Snap at 9, 19; Sotera at 19-21.
`
`Even beyond that point, the circumstances of the instant petition and
`
`conditional motion for joinder are materially distinct from those addressed by the
`
`Board’s Uniloc decision. In that decision, the petitioner was said to have “failed in
`
`its first attempt to challenge the [subject] patent,” and the subsequent attempt to “join
`
`an ongoing proceeding challenging the same patent” was said to have been made
`
`“over a year later and subject to a § 315(b) bar ….” Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`
`
`4 The district court has yet to set a trial date, and there is no reasonable expectation
`
`that it will schedule a trial ahead of the Board’s FWD in IPR2021-00337 (even
`
`assuming that the district court does not stay).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`IPR2020-00854 Pap. 9 at 7 (PTAB Oct. 28. 2020)(precedential).
`
`Unlike Uniloc, the Board has yet to issue an institution decision with respect
`
`to Apple’s 472 Proceeding, and thus, Apple has not had any opportunity to take
`
`advantage of such a decision. Further, the instant petition to which this motion
`
`pertains is not time-barred.5 And, as explained in more detail in the petition itself,
`
`the General Plastic factors favor institution.
`
`Moreover, and as explained in more detail below, joinder as sought in the
`
`specific circumstances on which this conditional motion is premised would help to
`
`efficiently resolve the disputes among the parties, without unduly prejudicing any
`
`party. Accordingly, if the Board were to deny instution of Apple’s 472 Proceeding
`
`challenging the ’077 Patent, Apple respectfully submits that it should be allowed to
`
`join Samsung’s 337 Proceeding in an “understudy” role. See Dell Inc. v. Network-
`
`1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 4-6 (PTAB Jul. 29 2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 GUI’s complaint alleging infringement of the ’077 Patent was served on Apple on
`
`July 30, 2020. EX1100; EX1118.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`GUI Global Products, Ltd. is the purported owner of the ’077 Patent. GUI
`
`asserted the ’077 Patent (and related patents US 10,589,320, US 10,259,021, and US
`
`10,259,020) against each of Apple and Samsung in two separate actions that have
`
`since been consolidated: Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-2652 (SDTX) and Civil Action
`
`No. 4:20-cv-2624 (SDTX).
`
`Apple is filing the instant petition addressing the ’077 patent (“Petition”)
`
`concurrently with three additional petitions corresponding to each of the three other
`
`patents that GUI presently asserts against Apple and Samsung (IPR2021-01289,
`
`IPR2021-01290, and IPR2021-01292).
`
`The table below summarizes the pre-existing inter partes review proceedings.
`
`Patent
`
`IPR Proceedings
`
`US 10,589,320 Samsung: IPR2021-00338 (instituted July 2, 2021)
`
`Apple: IPR2021-00473 (institution decision due August 19, 2021)
`
`US 10,562,077 Samsung: IPR2021-00337 (instituted July 2, 2021)
`
`Apple: IPR2021-00472 (institution decision due August 19, 2021)
`
`US 10,259,021 Samsung: IPR2021-00336 (instituted July 2, 2021)
`
`Apple: IPR2021-00471 (institution decision due August 19, 2021)
`
`US 10,259,020 Samsung: IPR2021-00335 (instituted July 2, 2021)
`
`Apple: IPR2021-00470 (institution decision due August 19, 2021)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`The Board has discretion to join a properly filed IPR petition to an existing
`
`IPR proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also Dell Inc.
`
`v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Pap. 17 at 4-6 (PTAB Jul. 29
`
`2013); Sony Corp. v. Yissum Res. & Dev. Co. of the Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem,
`
`IPR2013- 00326, Pap. 15 at 3-4 (PTAB Sep. 24, 2013); Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Pap. 15 at 3-4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013). “The Board
`
`will determine whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
`
`the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues, and other
`
`considerations.” Dell at 3. The movants bear the burden of proof in establishing
`
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A motion for joinder
`
`should:
`
`[A] set forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate; [B] identify any
`new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; [C] explain
`what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the
`existing review; and [D] address specifically how briefing and
`discovery may be simplified.
`
`Dell at 4.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder with the 337 Proceeding Would be Appropriate
`If the Board were to deny instution of Apple’s 472 Proceeding challenging
`
`the ’077 Patent, Apple respectfully requests institution of the petition for inter partes
`
`8
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`review filed concurrently herewith (“Petition”), and respectfully submits that joinder
`
`with the 337 Proceeding would be appropriate. The Petition is materially the same
`
`as the petition filed in the 337 Proceeding. The Petition and the petition in the 337
`
`Proceeding challenge the same claims, on the same grounds and rely on the same
`
`prior art and evidence, including an identical declaration from the same expert.6
`
`Further, Apple agrees to proceed solely on the grounds, evidence, and
`
`arguments advanced, or that will be advanced, in the 337 Proceeding as instituted.
`
`The Petition therefore warrants institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314, and 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c) permits Apple’s joinder to the inter partes review instituted in the 337
`
`Proceeding.
`
`Further, upon joining the 337 Proceeding, Apple will act as an “understudy”
`
`and will not assume an active role unless the current petitioner (Samsung) ceases to
`
`participate in the 337 Proceeding. The current petitioner will maintain the lead role
`
`in the proceeding so long as the current petitioner remains in the proceeding. These
`
`limitations will avoid lengthy and duplicative briefing. Apple also will not seek
`
`additional depositions or deposition time. Apple further agrees to the foregoing
`
`conditions even in the event that other third-party petitioners are joined with the 337
`
`Proceeding. Accordingly, the proposed joinder will neither unduly complicate the
`
`
`
`6 The declaration is an exact duplicate of the declaration in the 337 Proceeding.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`
`337 Proceeding nor delay its schedule.
`
`In fact, joinder will help efficiently resolve the disputes among the parties. By
`
`joinder, a single Board decision may dispose of the issues raised in the 337
`
`Proceeding for all interested parties. Further, joinder will narrow the issues in the
`
`co-pending district court actions because Petitioner and the current petitioner in the
`
`337 Proceeding have each, contingent upon institution, stipulated to forego raising
`
`the grounds of unpatentability in the 337 Proceeding at the district court. Further
`
`still, because the District Court has yet to set a trial date, joinder would almost
`
`certainly result in a final written decision that prevents (via the 315(e)(2) estoppel)
`
`both Apple and the current petitioner in the 337 Proceeding from pursuing printed
`
`publication invalidity grounds at trial in the District Court. Finally, joinder would
`
`not complicate or delay the 337 Proceeding, and would not adversely affect any
`
`schedule set in that proceeding. In sum, joinder would promote efficient
`
`adjudication in multiple forums.
`
`Further, joinder will not unduly prejudice any party. Because joinder will not
`
`add any new substantive issues, delay the schedule, burden deponents, or increase
`
`needless filings, any additional costs on the Patent Owner would be minimal. On
`
`the other hand, denial of joinder would prejudice Apple. Apple’s interests may not
`
`be adequately protected in the 337 Proceeding, particularly if the current petitioner
`
`(Samsung) settles with the Patent Owner.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper No.
`
`12 at 9 (Aug. 24, 2016) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Here, joinder with the 337 Proceeding is appropriate because the Petition introduces
`
`identical unpatentability arguments and the same grounds raised in the petition of
`
`the 337 Proceeding, without any change to the facts, citations, evidence, or
`
`arguments used in demonstrating satisfaction of the implicated claims by the applied
`
`prior art. Because these proceedings introduce identical unpatentability arguments
`
`and the same grounds, good cause exists for joinder, so that the Board, consistent
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can efficiently “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution” of this proceeding and the 337 Proceeding.
`
`B.
`Joinder Would Not Add Any New Grounds of Unpatentability
`The Petition is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art in the
`
`337 Proceeding. For simplicity and efficiency, Petitioner has copied the substance
`
`of the petition in the 337 Proceeding and its accompanying expert declaration.
`
`Petitioner does not seek to introduce grounds or claims not currently in the 337
`
`Proceeding and seeks only to join the proceeding as instituted. Patent Owner should
`
`not require any discovery beyond that which it may need in the 337 Proceeding—
`
`nor should the Board permit any. The present Petition introduces no new substantive
`
`11
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`issues relative to the 337 Proceeding and does not seek to broaden the scope of the
`
`337 Proceeding.
`
`C.
`Joinder Would Not Impact the 337 Proceeding’s Trial Schedule
`Joinder will not impact the 337 proceeding trial schedule because the present
`
`Petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability. See Sony Corp., et al.
`
`v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6 (granting IPR and
`
`motion for joinder where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or
`
`discovery from Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR]”).
`
`Further, Petitioner explicitly consents to the trial schedule as adopted in the 337
`
`proceeding. There are no new issues for the Board to address, and Patent Owner
`
`will not be required to present any additional responses or arguments.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response will also not be negatively impacted because
`
`the substantive issues presented in the present Petition are identical to the issues
`
`presented in the 337 Proceeding. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any
`
`additional analysis or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding
`
`to the petition in the 337 Proceeding. Also, because the present Petition relies on
`
`the same expert declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed
`
`joined proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder with the 337 Proceeding does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`D.
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`Apple explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, which will simplify
`
`briefing and discovery. Specifically, Apple explicitly agrees, upon joining the 337
`
`Proceeding, that the following conditions, as previously approved by the Board in
`
`similar circumstances, shall apply so long as the current petitioner remains an active
`
`party:
`
`a) all filings by Petitioner in the 337 Proceeding shall be consolidated with
`
`the filings of the current petitioner, unless a filing concerns issues solely
`
`involving Petitioner;
`
`b) Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not instituted
`
`by the Board in the 337 Proceeding, or introduce any argument or
`
`discovery not introduced by the current petitioner;
`
`c) Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and
`
`the current Petitioner concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`d) Petitioner at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross examination
`
`or redirect time beyond that permitted under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53
`
`or any agreement between Patent Owner and the current petitioner.
`
`See Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 at
`
`5 (Apr. 10, 2015). Unless and until the current petitioner ceases to participate, Apple
`
`will not assume an active role in the 337 Proceeding.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. 50095-0030IP2
`U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077
`Thus, by Apple accepting 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. These steps minimize the possibility of
`
`any complication or delay from joinder. See Sony, IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 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). Apple is further willing to agree to any other reasonable conditions the Board
`
`deems necessary.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that if, and only if, the
`
`Board has previously denied institution of the 472 Proceeding, the Board institute
`
`review of IPR2021-01291 and grant this motion for joinder with IPR2021-00337.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 30, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Control No. IPR2021-01291)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
` Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`14
`
`
`
`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 July 30, 2021,
`
`a complete and entire copy of this Motion for Joinder was provided via email to the
`
`Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Mossman, Kumar & Tyler PC
`P.O. Box 421239
`Houston TX 77242
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`