`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: April 14, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Denying Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 122, 3241, 47, and 4962 of U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’934 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner also filed a
`Motion for Joinder with Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00680 (the
`“’680 IPR”). Paper 3 (“Mot.” or “Joinder Motion”). Koss Corp. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response opposing institution and joinder.
`Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . .
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`For the reasons described below, we deny the Petition and Joinder
`Motion and do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.
`
`II. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The parties indicate that the ’934 patent is the subject of several court
`proceedings, the ’680 IPR filed by Bose Corp. (“Bose”), and two prior
`petitions for inter partes review filed by Petitioner. Pet. 2–3; Paper 5, 1–2.
`Based on Apple’s first petition, the ’934 patent was the subject of Apple Inc.
`v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00592 (the “’592 IPR”), where the Board granted
`institution of inter partes review. Paper 5, 2. Based on Apple’s second
`petition, the ’934 patent also was the subject of Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`
`
`1 Patent Owner did not file an Opposition to the Joinder, but asserts in the
`Preliminary Response that “the Board should deny institution of the Third
`Apple IPR and Petitioner’s motion for joinder.” Prelim. Resp. 11.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`IPR2021-00693 (the “’693 IPR”), where the Board denied institution of inter
`partes review. Id.
`The instant Petition challenges the same claims in the ’934 patent on
`the same grounds as Bose’s petition in the ’680 IPR. See Pet. 5–6. The
`Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 122, 3241, 47, and
`4962 of the ’934 patent based on the following asserted prior art and
`grounds in Bose’s ’680 IPR petition, as summarized in the following table:
`35
`U.S.C.
`§
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`103(a) Schrager,2 Goldstein3
`
`1–3, 5, 7, 9–11, 32–37, 39, 47,
`49, 51–57
`4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 38, 40, 41, 58–62 103(a) Schrager, Goldstein, Harada4
`14–16, 19, 21, 49–51
`103(a) Schrager, Goldstein, Skulley5
`103(a) Schrager, Goldstein, Skulley,
`Harada
`103(a) Rezvani-446,6 Rezvani-875,7
`Skulley, Hind8
`103(a) Rezvani-446, Rezvani-875,
`Skulley, Hind, Harada
`103(a) Rezvani-446, Rezvani-875,
`Oh,9 Hind
`
`17, 18, 20, 22
`1–3, 5, 7, 9–11, 14–16, 19, 21,
`47, 49–53
`4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22,
`58–62
`32–37, 39, 54–57
`
`
`2 US 7,072,686 B1, issued July 4, 2006 (Ex. 1101).
`3 US 2008/0031475 A1, published Feb. 7, 2008 (Ex. 1026).
`4 US 2006/0229014 A1, published Oct. 12, 2006 (Ex. 1098).
`5 US 6,856,690 B1, issued Feb. 15, 2005 (Ex. 1017).
`6 US 2007/0136446 A1, published June 14, 2007 (Ex. 1097).
`7 US 2007/0165875 A1, published July 19, 2007 (Ex. 1016).
`8 US 7,069,452 B1, issued June 27, 2006 (Ex. 1019).
`9 WO 2006/098584 A1, published Sept. 21, 2006 (Ex. 1099).
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`35
`U.S.C.
`§
`103(a) Rezvani-446, Rezvani-875,
`Oh, Hind, Harada
`Bose Corp. v. Koss. Corp., IPR2021-00680, Paper 15 at 8, 43 (PTAB Oct.
`13, 2021) (institution decision) (“’680 Dec.”).
`
`38, 40, 41
`
`III. WHETHER TO INSTITUTE INTER PARTES REVIEW
`As indicated above, the Petition here asserts the same grounds of
`unpatentability as those upon which the Board instituted review in the ’680
`IPR. Compare Pet. 6, with ’680 Dec. 8, 43. Petitioner verifies that the
`Petition “is substantively identical to the [’680] petition.” Pet. 5.
`Based on institution in the ’680 IPR, the substantively identical
`showing here by Petitioner warrants institution if the institution decision
`considers only the merits of the prior art challenges. Notwithstanding the
`merits, however, Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion
`to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and, accordingly, deny joinder,
`based on the General Plastic factors and the Board’s most recent
`precedential position on joinder. Prelim. Resp. 921 (citing General Plastic
`Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at
`16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i) and Apple Inc. v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9 at 4–7 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2020)
`(precedential as to discretionary denial of joinder) (“Uniloc”)).
`Petitioner argues that the General Plastic factors support granting
`joinder and that the facts in the Petition are substantially different than those
`in Uniloc. Mot. 6, 10. As explained in further detail below, Petitioner’s
`arguments are not persuasive. The “me-too” Petition here is Petitioner’s
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`third challenge to the ’934 patent. Should Bose settle, Petitioner would be
`able to continue a proceeding that would otherwise be terminated. See
`Uniloc, Paper 9 at 4 (“[S]hould Microsoft settle, Petitioner would stand in to
`continue a proceeding that would otherwise be terminated. In effect, it
`would be as if Apple had brought the [third] challenge to the patent in the
`first instance.”); General Plastic, Paper 19 at 17 (“Multiple, staggered
`petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for
`abuse.”).
`Under the precedential decision in Uniloc, deciding to join Apple as a
`party to the ’680 IPR first involves considering whether to exercise
`discretion under § 314(a). See Uniloc, Paper 9 at 5 (“[B]efore determining
`whether to join Apple as a party to the 023 IPR, even though the Petition is a
`‘me-too petition,’ we first determine whether application of the General
`Plastic factors warrants the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under
`§ 314(a).”).
`The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review, 35
`U.S.C. § 315(c), follows:
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under
`section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review under section 314.
`
`See also Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innov., LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (determining that § 315(c) requires “two different
`decisions,” first “whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`institution under § 314,” and then whether to “exercise . . . discretion to
`decide whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant”).
`Summarizing, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the Director’s discretion to
`join a party to an ongoing IPR includes determining whether the petition
`warrants institution. Under General Plastic, the Board may deny a petition
`based on the Director’s discretionary authority of § 314(a). General Plastic,
`Paper 19 at 15. Under Uniloc, before determining whether to join Apple as
`a party to the ’680 IPR, even though the Petition is a “me-too” Petition, we
`first determine whether application of the General Plastic factors warrants
`the exercise of discretion to deny the Petition under § 314(a). See Uniloc,
`Paper 9 at 5–13 (applying General Plastic factors).
`
`A. Prior Petitions
`In General Plastic, the Board recognized certain goals of the AIA but
`also “recognize[d] the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated
`attacks on patents.”10 General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16–17. On March 2,
`2021, Apple filed a first petition challenging the ’934 patent. ’592 IPR,
`Paper 2. The Board granted that petition on August 23, 2021, because the
`evidence and arguments presented met the reasonable likelihood threshold
`required for institution. ’592 IPR, Paper 9. On March 23, 2021, Apple filed
`a second petition challenging the ’934 patent. ’693 IPR, Paper 2. The Board
`denied that petition on October 13, 2021, because the evidence and
`arguments presented failed to meet substantively the reasonable likelihood
`threshold required for institution. ’693 IPR, Paper 11. At this point in the
`
`
`10 “AIA” refers to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
`112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`timeline of events, Patent Owner had served Apple with a district court
`complaint more than a year prior to the Board’s decision denying institution
`in the ’693 IPR. Accordingly, after that time, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) time
`barred Apple from filing any further petitions against the ’934 patent.
`Six days before Apple filed its second petition, Bose filed its petition
`challenging the ’934 patent, on March 17, 2021. ’680 IPR, Paper 2. The
`Board granted that petition and instituted the ’680 IPR on October 13, 2021.
`’680 Dec. 1.
`Apple filed its third petition, the instant Petition, on November 15,
`2021, together with its Joinder Motion, seeking to join the ’680 IPR. As
`noted above, Patent Owner challenges Apple’s request to join the ’680 IPR.
`See Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner notes that the Board denied Apple’s
`second petition, which Apple filed after the Bose filed its petition. See id. at
`7–8. Therefore, Patent Owner argues that we should deny this Petition as “a
`third bite at the apple [that] is exactly the ‘kind of serial attack that General
`Plastic was intended to address,’” because “Petitioner ‘is using the joinder
`procedure as an end run around its failed [second] petition.’” Id. at 11
`(quoting Uniloc, Paper 9 at 4).
`By way of summary, the Board instituted in Apple’s first attempt to
`challenge the ’934 patent, denied institution in Apple’s second attempt to
`challenge the ’934 patent, and, over a year later and subject to a § 315(b)
`bar, Apple seeks to join the ongoing Bose proceeding challenging that same
`patent with the instant Petition.
`
`B. General Plastic Factors
`The Board’s decision in General Plastic articulates a non-exhaustive
`list of factors to be considered in evaluating whether to exercise discretion,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), to deny a petition that challenges a patent that was
`previously challenged before the Board. These factors follow:
`1.
`whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent;
`2.
`whether at the time of filing of the first petition the
`petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or
`should have known of it;
`3.
`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 petition;
`4.
`the length of time that elapsed between the time the
`petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition
`and the filing of the second petition;
`5.
`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;
`6.
`the finite resources of the Board; and
`7.
`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.
`
`General Plastic, Paper 19 at 910.
`
`C. Assessment of the Factors
`The Petition here is Apple’s third petition challenging the ’934 patent.
`Patent Owner urges that we exercise discretion to deny the Petition and deny
`joinder because of Apple’s repeated challenges.
`1. “whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent”
`As stated above, this Petition is Apple’s third petition challenging
`claims of the ’934 patent. Prelim. Resp. 6. In its first petition, Apple
`challenged claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9–11, 14–16, 19, 21, 23–25, 28, 30, 32–37, 39,
`42–43, 45–48, and 51–57 of the ’934 patent. IPR2021-00592, Paper 2, 1. In
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`its second petition, Apple challenged claims 1–6, 8, 10–20, 22–29, 31–36,
`38–42, 44, and 58–62 of the ’934 patent. IPR2021-00693, Paper 2, 1. Here,
`in Apple’s third petition, Apple challenges a subset of the claims challenged
`in the first two petitions, and adds two additional dependent claims 49 and
`50. Pet. 6.
`Even though the challenged claims are not exactly the same in the
`instant Petition relative to Apple’s first two petitions, there is substantial
`overlap.
`Accordingly, this first General Plastic factor weighs in favor of
`exercising discretion to deny institution.
`2. “whether at the time of filing of the first [two]
`petition[s] the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in
`the [third] petition or should have known of it”
`Patent Owner argues that Apple “was aware of the prior art cited in
`this proceeding at the time it filed the Second Apple IPR because the prior
`art was cited in the Bose IPR, which was filed March 17, 2021 ([Exhibit]
`2006), six days before Petitioner filed the Second Apple IPR ([Exhibit]
`2007) on March 23, 2021.” Prelim. Resp. 13. In support of this assertion,
`Patent Owner contends that Apple “cited the Bose IPR in its mandatory
`notices in the Second Apple IPR ([Exhibit] 2007 at 76) and expressly
`acknowledged that the Bose IPR relied on ‘an entirely different set of prior
`art.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2007, 69).11 According to Patent Owner, Apple “had to
`know what art was cited in the Bose IPR in order to make the representation
`that the art was ‘entirely different.’” Id. Patent Owner further argues that
`Apple’s “Joinder Motion improperly ignores the Second Apple IPR and
`
`11 Page numbers refer to the original petition page numbers.
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`instead focuses solely on what Petitioner knew when it filed the First Apple
`IPR due to Petitioner’s mischaracterization of the Board’s ruling in Uniloc.”
`Id. at 14.
`Apple contends that it “was not aware of U.S. Patent No. 7,072,686
`(‘Schrager’)—the primary reference that forms the basis of Grounds 1A–1D
`of the [’]680 Proceeding—before Bose filed IPR2021-00612 (a petition
`against related U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025) a day later on March 3, 2021.”
`Mot. 7. This contention does not specifically address what Apple knew or
`should have known at the time of filing of its second petition, which Apple
`filed after the filing of the Bose ’680 petition and after March 3, 2021. See
`id. In any event, Apple appears to admit that it knew of Schrader prior to
`filing its second petition on March 23, 2021. See id. In addition, Patent
`Owner introduces evidence that Apple knew or should have known about
`Schrager prior to filing of its first petition. See Prelim. Resp. 15 (showing
`“Petitioner had been aware of Schrager since at least 2014” (citing Ex. 2003;
`Ex. 2004) and identifying “over 100 times” Apple “had cited Schrager to the
`Office . . . in its own patent applications” (citing Ex. 2002)); 4 (citing Ex.
`2002, 10–15 (web document listing Apple as assignee on multiple patents
`citing Schrager between 2014 and 2018)); Ex. 2003 (Information Disclosure
`Statement (IDS) filed by Apple listing Schrager in 2014); Ex. 2004 (IDS
`filed by Apple listing Schrager in 2016).
`Accordingly, this second General Plastic factor weighs in favor of
`exercising discretion to deny institution.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`
`3. “whether at the time of filing of the [third] petition the
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary
`response to the first [two] petition[s] or received the
`Board’s decision[s] on whether to institute review in the
`first [two] petition[s]”
`Patent Owner argues that prior to filing the instant Petition, Apple had
`already received the preliminary responses for Apple’s first and second
`petitions, and the Board had instituted Apple’s first petition and denied
`Apple’s second petition. Prelim. Resp. 17. As explained above in the
`timeline of events, the record shows that Apple had received the Board’s
`decisions granting the first petition and denying the second petition well
`before Apple filed the instant Petition. In its Joinder Motion, Apple focuses
`on the ’680 IPR petition and asserts that “Bose certainly did not have access
`to Koss’s preliminary response or the Board’s institution decision when
`preparing the petition for the [’]680 Proceeding.” Mot. 78.
`Apple’s argument is unpersuasive because the third General Plastic
`factor addresses whether Apple had access to a Board decision or a
`preliminary response concerning its first or second petitions, such that Apple
`would have been in a position to gain a benefit from having that information
`before filing its third petition. See Uniloc, Paper 9 at 10.
`Accordingly, the third General Plastic factor weighs in favor of
`exercising discretion to deny institution.
`4. “the length of time that elapsed between the time the
`petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the [third]
`petition and the filing of the [third] petition”
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he only prior art relied upon in this
`proceeding that Petitioner asserted it did not know of when it filed its
`petition for the First Apple IPR is Schrager.” Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Mot. 7). Patent Owner repeats that Apple knew of the prior art (including
`Schrager) when it filed its second petition “for more than eight months,” and
`at least should have known of the prior art when it filed its first petition. Id.
`(emphasis omitted). Apple argues that this factor is not relevant because it
`does not affect Patent Owner. Mot. 9.
`Contrary to Apple’s argument, the General Plastic factors are relevant
`to our analysis under the precedential decision in Uniloc, as explained
`above. The fourth General Plastic factor seeks to address a delay, if any, in
`filing a subsequent, in this case, third petition, i.e., the Petition. Apple was
`aware of the prior art asserted in its Petition for about seven and one-half
`months before Apple filed it (November 2021), because Apple’s second
`petition (March 2021) lists the ’680 IPR in the Related Matters section
`thereof and it also characterizes Bose’s ’680 petition as employing an
`“entirely different set of prior art” relative to Apple’s first petition and
`Bose’s ’680 petition. See Ex. 2007, 69, 76 (related matters); Prelim. Resp.
`18 (citing Ex. 2007).
`Accordingly, the fourth General Plastic factor weighs in favor of
`exercising discretion to deny institution.
`5. “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”
`Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner failed to provide any
`explanation as to the time elapsed between, on one hand, the filings of the
`First and Second Apple IPR[ petitions] in March of 2021, respectively, and,
`on the other hand, the filing of this proceeding almost eight months later in
`November of 2021.” Prelim. Resp. 19. Apple argues the fourth and fifth
`General Plastic factors together and asserts they are not relevant. See
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`Mot. 9. For the same reasons stated above, including with respect to
`factor 4, Uniloc dictates relevancy of the General Plastic factors here. See
`Uniloc, Paper 9 at 10–11.
`Accordingly, the fifth General Plastic factor weighs in favor of
`exercising discretion to deny institution.
`6. “the finite resources of the Board”
`Patent Owner argues that it is appropriate to consider the resources of
`the Board in the event “Bose and Patent Owner settle the Bose IPR.”
`Prelim. Resp. 20. Patent Owner is correct that if Bose and Patent Owner
`were to settle, Apple would stand in as a petitioner in the joined proceeding
`and that the Board would expend resources in continuing the proceeding in
`that event. Id. Apple argues that this sixth General Plastic factor weighs
`against denial of institution because the ’680 IPR is already ongoing and
`Apple’s involvement in an understudy role would not impact the Board’s
`resources. Mot. 9–13.
`Although a joinder request is usually an efficient mechanism by which
`to become a petitioner in an IPR, under the precedential decision in Uniloc,
`Apple’s argument that Apple’s understudy role is an efficient use of
`resources in what would be its third petition challenging the ’934 patent is
`not persuasive. See Uniloc, Paper 9 at 11–12. For example, consistent with
`Uniloc’s reasoning, should Bose settle, “Apple would stand in to continue a
`proceeding that would otherwise be terminated.” Id. at 12. Also, “[j]oinder
`in this circumstance would allow Apple to continue a proceeding, even after
`settlement with the primary petitioner, based on a [third] attempt by Apple.”
`Id.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, the sixth General Plastic factor weighs in favor of
`exercising discretion to deny institution of the proceeding.
`7. “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”
`Like the sixth General Plastic factor, the seventh factor, “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,” implicates an efficiency consideration.
`Patent Owner argues that “[a]s in Uniloc, this factor is neutral.”
`Prelim. Resp. 20. Apple argues that joinder and institution will not impact
`the timing of issuing a final written decision in the ’680 IPR because the
`issues are the same with Apple acting as an understudy to Bose. See Mot. 9–
`13.
`
`Notwithstanding Apple’s argument, the issues were the same in the
`successive petitions in Uniloc because that case also involved a “me-too
`petition.” Uniloc, Paper 9 at 4; see also id. at 12 (“Because there is no
`evidence or persuasive argument towards this factor, we determine this
`factor’s weight is neutral.”). However, unlike in Uniloc, Apple articulates
`some argument here even if Apple mainly explicitly relies on what was
`implicit in Uniloc––i.e., a “me-too petition” as providing an efficiency gain.
`Compare IPR2022-00854, Paper 8, 5 (Apple arguing that “[t]his factor
`weighs in favor of institution, as there is nothing to prevent the Board from
`issuing a final determination on Microsoft’s petition within one year”), with
`Mot. 10–13 (providing efficiency “understudy” arguments as summarized
`above and also arguing that Apple consents to the ’680 IPR trial schedule).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, this seventh factor is neutral or weighs slightly in favor
`of not exercising discretion to deny institution.
`
`D. Conclusion
`After a holistic review of the General Plastic factors and the
`arguments presented for and against the exercise of discretionary denial, and
`following Uniloc, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and deny
`institution.
`
`IV DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`As stated above, the Director may join a party to an ongoing IPR only
`if the filed petition warrants institution under § 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`Because we deny institution under § 314, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for
`Joinder.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
` ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is
`denied; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00188
`Patent 10,469,934 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`David Holt
`Joel Henry
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`holt2@fr.com
`jhenry@fr.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark Knedeisen
`K&L GATES LLP
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`
`16
`
`