throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 37
` Entered: June 1, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (“Samsung” or
`“Petitioner”), filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–19
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228 B2 (“the ’228 patent”). Paper 2. On June 13,
`2022, the Board instituted trial. Paper 12.
`In a related proceeding challenging claims 1–7 of the ’228 patent,
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413 (the “Unified
`proceeding”), the Board entered an Order (Paper 56 (confidential)) on March
`8, 2023, identifying Samsung as an unnamed Real Party in Interest (“RPI”),
`and on March 14, 2023, entered a Final Written Decision (Paper 58
`(confidential)) finding claims 1–7 unpatentable.
`On March 31, 2023, the Board held a conference call with counsel for
`the parties in this proceeding, as well as counsel for the parties in the Unified
`proceeding and counsel for the parties in Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2022-00031 (the “Apple proceeding”). Ex. 3002. On April 7, 2023,
`pursuant to the Board’s request, counsel for the parties provided their
`respective positions on how to move forward in these proceedings. Ex.
`3001. On May 12, 2023, counsel provided the Board with additional
`information on their respective positions. Ex. 1003.
`Patent Owner, MemoryWeb, LLC (“MemoryWeb” or “Patent
`Owner”) seeks leave to file a motion to terminate this proceeding in view of
`the Board’s Final Written Decision in the Unified proceeding. Ex. 3001, 1.
`Samsung opposes Patent Owner’s request, and asserts that MemoryWeb has
`waived its right to raise the RPI issue in this proceeding. Id. at 2–3.
`Samsung believes it would be appropriate to permit its outside counsel to
`inspect the record in the Unified proceeding that bears on the RPI issue, but
`opposes additional discovery in this proceeding on that issue. Id.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`MemoryWeb asserts that to the extent Samsung wishes to argue waiver, that
`Samsung do so in its opposition to MemoryWeb’s requested motion to
`terminate. Id. at 1.
`On May 4, 2023, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c), the Chief
`Administrative Patent Judge determined that good cause exists to extend the
`one-year period for issuing a Final Written Decision in this proceeding in
`light of the Board’s Final Written Decision in the Unified proceeding. Paper
`35. On May 18, 2023, we issued an Order extending the one-year pendency
`of this proceeding for up to six months. Paper 36.
`On May 22, 2023, the Director issued a public version1 of a Decision
`Granting Director Review (Paper 76, “Director’s Decision”) in the Unified
`proceeding, vacating-in-part the Final Written Decision (Section I.B) (Paper
`58 (confidential) and Paper 67 (public)) and the Board’s Order identifying
`Samsung as an RPI (Paper 56 (confidential)) in that proceeding. The
`Director’s Decision states 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, for
`example, but not limited to, a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) or an
`estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) that might apply.” Paper 76, 5.
`After considering the parties’ positions and the procedural history of
`this case and the related proceedings, the parties are directed to prepare and
`submit for consideration a detailed discovery plan and briefing schedule
`
`
`1 On May 16, 2023, a confidential version of the Director’s Decision
`Granting Director Review (Paper 74) was issued, but made available only to
`the parties and the Board.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`designed to address the RPI, estoppel, and waiver issues. The discovery
`plan and briefing schedule should be designed to address the following
`issues: 1) whether Samsung should have been named as an RPI in the
`Unified proceeding; 2) whether Samsung is estopped from maintaining this
`proceeding, or a portion of this proceeding, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(e)(1); and 3) whether MemoryWeb has waived any right to assert
`estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) in this proceeding. In preparing the
`discovery plan and briefing schedule, the parties should consider the burdens
`of proof for the RPI, estoppel, and waiver issues to the extent they are
`addressed in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.. No. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir.
`Apr. 3, 2023) and Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897
`F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the parties shall confer and develop a proposed joint
`discovery plan and briefing schedule in accordance with this Order; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall report back to the Board
`via e-mail no later than June 7, 2023, providing the proposed joint discovery
`plan and briefing schedule, indicating any items on which the parties
`disagree.
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`Axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`Jeremy Monaldo
`jjm@fr.com
`
`Hyun Jin In
`in@fr.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`
`George Dandalides
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket