Paper No. 9
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
