IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S BRIEF ADDRESSING GOOD CAUSE TO MOVE TO
`TERMINATE THIS IPR AND RELY ON SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION, AND REQUESTS FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR
`SUBPOENAS AND ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1 
`The Unified IPR ......................................................................................... 2 
`The Board’s RPI Order and Final Written Decision ............................. 2 
`Unified’s Request for Director Review ................................................. 3 
`Unified’s Confidential Information ....................................................... 4 
`Apple’s IPR................................................................................................. 5 
`B. 
`C.  MemoryWeb Promptly Sought to Terminate this IPR Following the
`Unified FWD .............................................................................................. 5 
`III.  LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`Real-Party-in-Interest ................................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`Estoppel and Termination ........................................................................... 7 
`C. 
`Board Rules Regarding Timing .................................................................. 8 
`D.  Additional Discovery .................................................................................. 9 
`IV.  TO THE EXTENT IT IS REQUIRED, GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR
`MEMORYWEB TO MOVE TO TERMINATE THIS IPR ............................ 9 
`A.  MemoryWeb’s Contemplated Motion to Terminate based on Apple’s RPI
`Status and the Unified FWD is not a Late Action .................................... 10 
`Good Cause Exists to Consider MemoryWeb’s Motion to Terminate
`Based on Estoppel and Apple’s RPI Status .............................................. 11 
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND THE INTERESTS OF
`JUSTICE ........................................................................................................ 17 
`The “Supplemental Information” Rule Does Not Apply ......................... 17 
`Consideration of “Supplemental Information” Relating to Apple’s RPI
`Status in the Unified IPR is in the Interests of Justice ............................. 18 
`The Board should Waive or Suspend the Requirements of 37 C.F.R. §
`42.123(b) ................................................................................................... 20 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`A. 
`
`1. 
`2. 
`3. 
`
`V. 
`
`B. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`VI.  MEMORYWEB’S MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR
`DOCUMENT AND DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS ...................................... 21 
`A.  Garmin Factor 1 ....................................................................................... 22 
`B. 
`Garmin Factor 2 ....................................................................................... 23 
`C. 
`Garmin Factor 3 ....................................................................................... 23 
`D.  Garmin Factors 4 and 5 ............................................................................ 24 
`VII.  MEMORYWEB’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY FROM
`APPLE ........................................................................................................... 25 
`A.  Garmin Factor 1 ....................................................................................... 25 
`B. 
`Garmin Factor 2 ....................................................................................... 25 
`C. 
`Garmin Factor 3 ....................................................................................... 26 
`D.  Garmin Factors 4 and 5 ............................................................................ 26 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 27 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`IPR2016-01860, Paper 28 (PTAB Jan. 10, 2018) .......................................... 8, 21
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 6, 7, 14
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................... 7
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) ......................... 9, 22, 23, 24, 25
`Glob. Shade Corp. v. with-U E-Com. (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2021-00365, Paper 36 (PTAB July 25, 2022) .............................................. 20
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC,
`IPR2018-01248, Paper 34 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2020) .................................................. 8
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 7
`Kofax, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.,
`IPR2015-01207, Paper 22 (PTAB June 2, 2016) ............................................... 15
`Kofax, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.,
`IPR2015-01207, Paper 24 (PTAB July 20, 2016) ........................................ 15, 16
`Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00810, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 5, 2019) ............................................ 12, 14
`Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 435 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 17, 19
`RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) .......................................... 7, 13
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2022-00222 ..................................................................................................... 2
`SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) ................................................ 14
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corp.,
`941 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 19
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2021-01413 ............................................................................................passim
`Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Lindsay Corp.,
`730 F. App’x 918 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 17
`Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00136, Paper 43 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2018) ................................................ 8
`Worlds Inc., v. Bungie, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018). ..................................................................... 6, 13
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 24 .......................................................................................................... 21
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................................... 6, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ....................................................................................... 2, 7, 10
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) .......................................................................... 1, 8, 17, 18, 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.25(b) .................................................................................... 1, 8, 9, 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) ............................................................................................. 11, 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) .............................................................................................. 8, 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(1) .............................................................................................. 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) ............................................................................ 1, 8, 9, 10, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a) ................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.528)... ccccccccsssssscssesssessecssesseessessesssecssessesssessessaecnesesessesseesaesaaseeeeaeenes 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 voce ccccsscssscssesssessessecssecssesssessessesaecssessesseesesuaecaeseaesseeesessaesaeseeeesesagss 6
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,759 ................................................................................................... 6
`TT Fed. Reg. 48,759 .......ccsccccscecsssecssscesseecsseeecesecssaeecseesessuecseeessuecssesecaeessaeeeeaeeseneesas 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`WITHDRAWN
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Hyunmo Kang et al., Capture, Annotated, Browse, Find, Share:
`Novel Interfaces for Personal Photo Management, International
`Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3), 315-37 (2007)
`(“Kang”)
`
`Jaffe et al., Generating Summaries and Visualization for Large
`Collections of Geo-Referenced Photographs, Proceedings of the
`8th ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Multimedia
`Information Retrieval, MIR 2006, October 26-27, 2006 (“Jaffe”)
`
`Allan Hoffman, Create Great iPhone Photos: Apps, Tips, Tricks,
`and Effects, No Starch Press, Inc. (Copyright 2011)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0171763 (“Bhatt”)
`
`Feb. 8, 2022 eBay Order Confirmation for “Apple Aperture 3
`Upgrade for Mac Brand New Photography”
`
`Apple Inc. Aperture Software License Agreement
`
`Declaration of John Leone, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal
`Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, EX1005 (July 20, 2018)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual (Archive.org:
`July 26, 2010)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual (Archive.org:
`Feb. 17, 2010)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., www.apple.com, (Archive.org: Mar. 12, 2010)
`
`Devin Coldewey, Review: Aperture 3, CrunchGear
`(https://techcrunch.com/2010/03/19/review-aperture-3/) (last
`accessed Feb. 2, 2022)
`
`Hilary Greenbaum, Who Made Google’s Map Pin?, The New York
`Times, (Apr. 18, 2011)
`
`Google Developers, Customizing a Google Map: Custom Markers
`(last accessed Feb. 17, 2022)
`
`KML4Earth, Google Earth/Maps Public Icons,
`http://kml4earth.appspot.com:80/icons.html (Archive.org May 27,
`2012)
`
`Declaration of Angelo J. Christopher
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., “Apple Human Interface Guidelines” (Aug. 20, 2009)
`
`Wilbert O. Galitz, “The Essential Guide to User Interface Design:
`An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques,” Wiley
`Publishing, Inc. (3rd Ed.) (2007)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. I)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. II)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Matthew Birdsell
`
`Affidavit of Nathaniel E Frank-White
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`eBay Receipt (August 15, 2022)
`
`Jennifer Tidwell, Designing Interfaces, O’Reilly (1st Ed. 2005)
`
`RESERVED
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413,
`Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 57)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Final
`Written Decision (Public Version) (Paper 67)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413,
`Decision Granting Director Review (Public Version) (Paper 76)
`
`Email from Counsel for Patent Owner to Counsel for Petitioner
`Regarding MemoryWeb’s Motion to Terminate (Mar. 14, 2023)
`
`Email Chain between Counsel for Patent Owner and Counsel for
`Petitioner (Jun. 2-8, 2023)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`Unified Patents Document Subpoena, Attachment A
`
`Unified Patents Testimony Subpoena, Attachment A
`
`Apple Document Production Requests, Attachment A
`
`Declaration of Jennifer Hayes
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Order
`Identifying Real Party in Interest (Public Version) (Paper 79)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413,
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal and For Entry of Protective Order
`(Paper 10)
`
`x
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to the Board’s June 15, 2023 Order (Paper 45), MemoryWeb, LLC
`
`(“MemoryWeb” or “Patent Owner”) hereby submits its brief addressing the issues
`
`set forth in Exhibit 3005, including good cause pursuant 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(c)(3) and
`
`42.25(b) for MemoryWeb’s real-party-in-interest (“RPI”) and estoppel arguments in
`
`connection with its contemplated motion to terminate, the submission of
`
`supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b), MemoryWeb’s motion for
`
`authorization to apply for subpoenas directed to Unified Patents, LLC (“Unified”),
`
`and MemoryWeb’s motion for additional discovery from Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”).
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`MemoryWeb has defended three successive inter partes reviews challenging
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228 (“the ‘228 patent”) based on the same or similar alleged prior
`
`art. Unified filed the first petition on September 3, 2021 challenging claims 1-7
`
`based on Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and Gilley (hereinafter, “the Unified IPR”).
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`filed the second petition—which is the basis of this proceeding—on October 30,
`
`2021 challenging claims 1-19 based on the Aperture 3 User Manual (“A3UM”) and
`
`Belitz (hereinafter, “the Apple IPR”). Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. (“Samsung”)
`
`filed the third petition on December 3, 2021 challenging claims 1-19 based on
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`Okamura and Belitz (hereinafter, “the Samsung IPR”). Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`Ltd. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00222.
`
`A. The Unified IPR
`MemoryWeb challenged the identification of Unified as the sole RPI in the
`
`Unified IPR prior to institution. Ex. 2045, 2. The Unified Institution Decision
`
`declined to address whether Apple and Samsung were unnamed RPIs “because there
`
`was no allegation of a time bar or estoppel that would preclude” the Unified IPR. Id.
`
`After institution, MemoryWeb sought and received discovery from Unified
`
`regarding its relationship with Apple and Samsung and deposed Unified’s CEO
`
`Kevin Jakel on May 26, 2022. Id. Unified designated much of that discovery as
`
`confidential and moved to seal much of it pursuant to a Protective Order. See Ex.
`
`2045 (“the Unified Protective Order”). MemoryWeb argued that the Board should
`
`address Apple and Samsung’s RPI status in the Unified IPR because Apple and
`
`Samsung’s follow-on IPRs implicate estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). See Ex.
`
`2045, 5-6.
`
`1.
`The Board’s RPI Order and Final Written Decision
`On March 8, 2023, the Board issued an order in the Unified IPR finding that
`
`Apple and Samsung were RPIs to the Unified IPR and ordered Unified to update its
`
`mandatory notices (hereinafter, “the RPI Order”). Ex. 2045, 34; Ex. 2036. After
`
`considering the parties’ arguments and evidence—much of which is subject to the
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`Unified Protective Order—the Board concluded that “Unified has a long-term,
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`established, mutually beneficial relationship with its members, Apple and
`
`Samsung.” Ex. 2045, 33. The Board also found “that Apple and Samsung are clear
`
`beneficiaries to” the Unified IPR and that “Unified is representing their interests.”
`
`Id.
`
`The RPI Order found that deciding whether Apple and Samsung were RPIs in
`
`the Unified IPR was appropriate “to avoid unnecessary prejudice” to MemoryWeb
`
`in having to “unnecessarily defend against two subsequent IPR challenges filed by
`
`Apple and Samsung.”. Ex. 2045, 6. The RPI Order also found that the “underlying
`
`purpose of Section 315(e) would potentially be frustrated” if it declined to consider
`
`MemoryWeb’s arguments that Apple and Samsung were RPIs to the Unified IPR. Id.
`
`On March 14, 2023, the Board entered a Final Written Decision in the Unified
`
`IPR addressing claims 1-7 of the ‘228 patent (“the Unified FWD”). See Ex. 2037, 3-
`
`5.1
`
`2.
`Unified’s Request for Director Review
`Unified filed a Request for Director Review arguing, inter alia, that the
`
`Board’s RPI Order was effectively “a non-binding advisory opinion” and prejudiced
`
` 
`1 MemoryWeb has requested rehearing of certain unpatentability findings in the
`
`Unified FWD.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`Apple and Samsung because they were not participants to the Unified IPR, even
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`though none of Unified, Apple, and Samsung sought to involve Apple and Samsung
`
`in the Unified IPR. Ex. 2038, 5. The Director granted Unified’s request and vacated
`
`the Board’s RPI Order (“the Director Decision”) because, in the Director’s view,
`
`determining whether Apple and Samsung were RPIs “was not necessary to resolve
`
`the” Unified IPR. Id. The Director Decision instructed that “[t]he Board can and
`
`should make a determination of the real parties in interest or privity in any
`
`proceeding in which that determination may impact the underlying proceeding.” Id.
`
`Notably, the Director Decision did not find error with any of the fact findings
`
`in the RPI Order nor with its legal analysis finding that Apple and Samsung were
`
`RPIs to the Unified IPR. Id., 4-5.
`
`3.
`Unified’s Confidential Information
`Following the Unified FWD, MemoryWeb, Apple, Samsung, and Unified
`
`conferred at the Board’s direction regarding MemoryWeb’s contemplated motion to
`
`terminate the Apple and Samsung proceedings. See, e.g., Ex. 3002; Ex. 3004.
`
`Unified refused to allow Apple and Samsung to “inspect” confidential materials
`
`from the Unified IPR despite the relevant parties’ willingness to sign onto an
`
`appropriate protective order. Ex. 3002, 2-3; see also Ex. 3004, 2. Unified indicated
`
`that it would only produce such materials subject to appropriate protections and
`
`“pursuant to a valid third-party subpoena.” Ex. 3002, 3; see also Ex. 3003, 15:9-
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`16:12 (arguing that “the only way” for Unified to produce its confidential
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`information would be via “a third-party subpoena from the appropriate district
`
`court”).
`
`B. Apple’s IPR
`Apple filed its Petition challenging the ‘228 patent on October 30, 2021.
`
`Apple was aware of the Unified IPR at least as early as October 2021 because the
`
`Petition affirmatively identified the Unified IPR as a related matter. Pet., 2-3.
`
`Apple’s Petition identifies Apple as the sole RPI in this proceeding. Pet., 2.
`
`MemoryWeb does not contend that Apple failed to name Unified as an RPI in this
`
`proceeding; rather, it was Unified that failed to name Apple as an RPI in the Unified
`
`IPR.
`
`C. MemoryWeb Promptly Sought to Terminate this IPR Following
`the Unified FWD
`On the same day the Board issued the Unified FWD, MemoryWeb notified
`
`Apple that it intended “to seek authorization to move to terminate this proceeding at
`
`least as to claims 1-7 because Apple is estopped from maintaining this IPR pursuant
`
`to at least 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and 315(d)” in light of the Unified FWD and
`
`Unified’s updated mandatory notices acknowledging the Board’s finding that Apple
`
`was an RPI. Ex. 2039, 2.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Real-Party-in-Interest
`A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition
`
`identifies all” RPIs. 35 U.S.C. § 312; 37 C.F.R. § 42.8. The Petitioner bears the
`
`burden of persuasion to show that its identification of RPIs is correct. Worlds Inc., v.
`
`Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242-43 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`“Determining whether a non-party is a ‘real party in interest’ demands a
`
`flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical considerations,
`
`with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has
`
`a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.” Applications in Internet
`
`Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (AIT I). The Federal
`
`Circuit has construed the term RPI to “sweep[]” broadly. Id. at 1346–47. Two key
`
`inquiries are “whether a non-party ‘desires review of the patent” and whether a
`
`petition has been filed at a nonparty’s behest.” Id. at 1351 (quoting Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759).
`
`Relevant factors in the RPI analysis in this case include (i) Unified’s business
`
`model and the nature of Unified as an entity; (ii) Unified’s own interest in the Unified
`
`IPR; (iii) whether Unified considers member’s interest when determining whether
`
`to file an IPR; (iv) Apple’s relationship with Unified; (v) Apple’s interest in and
`
`benefit from the Unified IPR; (vi) whether Unified is representing Apple’s interest;
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`and (vii) whether Apple funded, directed, or influenced the Unified IPR. RPX Corp.
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 at 10 (PTAB Oct.
`
`2, 2020) (precedential) (citing AIT I, 897 F.3d at 1358) (hereinafter, “AIT II”); Ex.
`
`2045, 14-15.
`
`B.
`Estoppel and Termination
`By statute, “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim . . . that results
`
`in a final written decision . . . or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner,
`
`may not request or maintain” an IPR “with respect to that claim on any ground that
`
`the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during” the first IPR. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(e)(1).2 The resulting estoppel “applies not just to claims and grounds asserted
`
`in the petition . . . but to all grounds not stated in the petition but which reasonably
`
`could have been asserted against the claims included in the petition.” Cal. Inst. of
`
`Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., 25 F.4th 976, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2022). A ground reasonably
`
`could have been asserted when “a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search
`
`reasonably would have been expected to discover” the references relied upon for that
`
`ground. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1299 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2023).
`
` 
`2 Unless otherwise stated, emphasis shown in case and evidence cites is added.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`
`
`When a first IPR results in a final written decision and there is a second IPR
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`filed by the same petitioner or its RPI, the proper course is for the Board to terminate
`
`the second IPR as to the same claims that were challenged in the first IPR. See, e.g.,
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, IPR2018-01248, Paper 34 at 10-18 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 6, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, IPR2016-01860,
`
`Paper 28 (PTAB Jan. 10, 2018); Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., IPR2017-
`
`00136, Paper 43 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2018).
`
`C. Board Rules Regarding Timing
`The Board’s rules provide that “[a] party should seek relief promptly after the
`
`need for relief is identified.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.25(b). However, “[a] late action will be
`
`excused on a showing of good cause or upon a Board decision that consideration on
`
`the merits would be in the interests of justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3).
`
`When “seeking to submit supplemental information more than one month
`
`after the date the trial is instituted,” the movant “must show why the supplemental
`
`information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier, and that consideration
`
`of the supplemental information would be in the interests-of-justice.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.123(b). The Board also has the authority to “waive or suspend” its rules. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.5(b).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`D. Additional Discovery
`“A party seeking to compel testimony or production of documents or things
`
`must file a motion for authorization” describing the relevance of the requested
`
`discovery. 37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a). A party seeking documents must describe “the
`
`general nature of the document or thing.” Id. For witness testimony, the moving party
`
`must “identify the witness by name or title.” Id.
`
`The Board applies a five-factor test to determine whether discovery is in the
`
`“interests of justice”: (1) whether there is more than a possibility and mere allegation
`
`that useful information will be found; (2) whether the discovery seeks litigation
`
`positions; (3) the movant’s ability to generate equivalent information by other
`
`means; (4) whether the requests are easily understandable; and (5) whether the
`
`requests are overly burdensome. Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (precedential).
`
`IV. TO THE EXTENT IT IS REQUIRED, GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR
`MEMORYWEB TO MOVE TO TERMINATE THIS IPR
`Apple contends that MemoryWeb must show good cause pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.25(b) as a predicate to arguing that Apple was
`
`an RPI to the Unified IPR and therefore estopped from maintaining this IPR. Ex.
`
`3005. But MemoryWeb need not show “good cause” because its contemplated
`
`motion to terminate is not a “late action.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3). And even if,
`
`arguendo, MemoryWeb’s motion to terminate were untimely (which it is not), good
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`cause exists for the Board to excuse any alleged late action given the unprecedented
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`procedural posture of this case and the Director Decision.
`
`A. MemoryWeb’s Contemplated Motion to Terminate based on
`Apple’s RPI Status and the Unified FWD is not a Late Action
`The Board rule identified by Apple in support of its waiver/forfeiture
`
`argument provides that “[a] party should seek relief promptly after the need for relief
`
`is identified.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.25(b). MemoryWeb did that. Estoppel is only triggered
`
`if and when a related proceeding—in this case, the Unified IPR—results in a final
`
`written decision. Supra, § III.B. MemoryWeb immediately sought to terminate this
`
`proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) the same day the Board issued the
`
`Unified FWD. Ex. 2039. Apple cannot credibly claim that MemoryWeb failed to
`
`seek relief promptly in these circumstances. 37 C.F.R. § 42.25(b).
`
`MemoryWeb’s contemplated motion to terminate based on Apple’s RPI status
`
`in the Unified IPR and the resulting estoppel is not a “late action” as defined in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3). The rule provides that “[t]he Board may set times by order” and
`
`“[t]imes set by rule are default and may be modified by order.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.5(c)(1). The scheduling order did not set a deadline for moving to terminate based
`
`on estoppel or introducing evidence that Apple was an RPI to the Unified IPR. Paper
`
`13; Paper 17. The Board’s rules do not expressly set a deadline for moving to
`
`terminate based on the petitioner’s RPI status in a different proceeding and the
`
`resulting estoppel. See 37 C.F.R. § 42 et. seq. Indeed, MemoryWeb could not have
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`moved to terminate this IPR unless and until the Unified IPR resulted in a final
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`written decision. Supra, § III.B.
`
`Where, as here, a “situation [is] not specifically covered by” the Board’s rules,
`
`“[t]he Board may determine a proper course of conduct.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a). In the
`
`absence of any explicit rule providing that MemoryWeb’s requested relief is a “late
`
`action,” the Board need not decide that “good cause” exists; it need only decide that
`
`the proper course of conduct in this IPR is to allow MemoryWeb to proceed with
`
`limited additional discovery and its motion to terminate. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a); Ex.
`
`3005; infra, §§ VI, VII. Indeed, the Director Decision provides that “[t]he Board can
`
`and should make a determination” of Apple’s RPI status in the Unified IPR in this
`
`proceeding because it would lead to estoppel and at least partial termination. Ex.
`
`2045, 5.
`
`For at least these reasons, Apple’s argument that MemoryWeb must show
`
`“good cause” for its motion to terminate is meritless.
`
`B. Good Cause Exists to Consider MemoryWeb’s Motion to
`Terminate Based on Estoppel and Apple’s RPI Status
`To the extent the Board determines that it is necessary, good cause exists to
`
`excuse any “late action” on MemoryWeb’s part. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3).3 As
`
` 
`3 The Board already found that good cause exists to extend the statutory deadline in
`
`view of these issues. Paper 42, 3.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`discussed above, MemoryWeb could not have moved to terminate this proceeding
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`based on estoppel until the Unified IPR resulted in a final written decision and acted
`
`promptly as soon as that occurred. Supra, §§ III.B, IV.A. To the extent that
`
`MemoryWeb must show “good cause” for not presenting arguments and evidence
`
`earlier in this proceeding regarding Apple’s RPI status in the Unified IPR—even
`
`though the Unified IPR had not yet resulted in a final written decision—good cause
`
`exists for MemoryWeb to present such evidence and arguments now.
`
`The Board has recognized that “[g]ood cause may exist[] where there has been
`
`an intervening change in the law” or “where new guidance has been issued.”
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs., Inc., IPR2019-00810, Paper 8 at 3 (PTAB Sep. 5,
`
`2019). That is the case here. The Director Decision provided explicit guidance that
`
`“[t]he Board can and should make a determination” of Apple’s RPI status in the
`
`Unified IPR in this proceeding - rather than the Unified IPR. Ex. 2045, 5. This
`
`guidance is “new” in the sense that there was no prior guidance expressly addressing
`
`how a patent owner should proceed if faced with (1) a first IPR that failed to name
`
`an RPI and (2) a second, later IPR filed by the unnamed RPI. Indeed, the Board has
`
`expressed doubts as to whether “there’s been a circumstance like this before.” Ex.
`
`3004, 49:7-20.
`
`Given the lack of guidance to the contrary prior to the Director Decision,
`
`MemoryWeb’s decision to address Apple’s RPI status in the Unified IPR—rather
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
` 
`than this proceeding—was reasonable and appropriate. Indeed, the RPI Order agreed
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`with MemoryWeb that “[d]etermining whether Apple or Samsung are RPIs in” the
`
`Unified IPR was “a necessary precursor to determining whether they would be
`
`estopped in a subsequent proceeding.” Ex. 2045, 6.
`
`The IPR statute provides that a petition “may be considered only if” it
`
`“identifies all” RPIs. 35 U.S.C. § 312. It was Unified’s petition—not Apple’s
`
`petition—that failed to name all RPIs, so MemoryWeb raised its RPI arguments in
`
`the Unified IPR where the failure occurred. MemoryWeb does not contend that
`
`Appl