Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00222
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S BRIEF ADDRESSING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TERMINATE AND
`AUTHORIZATION FOR THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS TO UNIFIED
`PATENTS
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222 Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`1. 
`2. 
`3. 
`
`1. 
`
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`The Unified IPR ......................................................................................... 1 
`The Board’s RPI Order and Final Written Decision ............................. 2 
`Unified’s Request for Director Review ................................................. 3 
`Unified’s Confidential Information ....................................................... 4 
`Samsung’s IPR ............................................................................................ 5 
`B. 
`C.  MemoryWeb Promptly Sought to Terminate this IPR in View of the
`Unified RPI Order ................................................................................. 5 
`III.  LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................ 6 
`A. 
`Real-Party-in-Interest ................................................................................. 6 
`RPI Procedure ........................................................................................ 7 
`Estoppel and Termination ......................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Additional Discovery ................................................................................ 12 
`C. 
`IV.  SAMSUNG’S RPI STATUS IN THE UNIFIED IPR CAN GIVE RISE TO
`ESTOPPEL .............................................................................................................. 12 
`V.  MEMORYWEB’S MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR
`DOCUMENT AND DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS ................................................ 15 
`A.  Garmin Factor 1 ....................................................................................... 16 
`B. 
`Garmin Factor 2 ....................................................................................... 17 
`C. 
`Garmin Factor 3 ....................................................................................... 17 
`D.  Garmin Factors 4 and 5 ............................................................................ 18 
`VI. MEMORYWEB’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY FROM
`SAMSUNG .............................................................................................................. 19 
`A.  Garmin Factor 1 ....................................................................................... 20 
`B. 
`Garmin Factor 2 ....................................................................................... 20 
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222 Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. 
`Garmin Factor 3 ....................................................................................... 20 
`D.  Garmin Factors 4 and 5 ............................................................................ 21 
`VII. 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 21 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222 Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`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) .............................................. 12
`
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 6, 8, 15
`
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 11
`
`
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) ........................................passim
`
`
`Glob. Shade Corp. v. with-U E-Com. (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2021-00365, Paper 36 (PTAB July 25, 2022) .............................................. 14
`
`
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC,
`IPR2018-01248, Paper 34 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2020) ................................................ 12
`
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`Kofax, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.,
`IPR2015-01207, Paper 22 (PTAB June 2, 2016) ............................................... 10
`
`
`Kofax, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.,
`IPR2015-01207, Paper 24 (PTAB July 20, 2016) .............................................. 10
`
`
`Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 435 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 14
`
`
`RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) ............................................ 7, 8
`
`
`SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp.,
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222 Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) .................................................. 9
`
`
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corp.,
`941 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 14
`
`
`Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00136, Paper 43 (Jan. 25, 2018) .......................................................... 12
`
`
`Worlds Inc., v. Bungie, Inc.,
`
`903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 6, 8
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 24 .......................................................................................................... 15
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ...................................................................................................... 6, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ....................................................................................... 2, 5, 11
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.25(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a) ................................................................................................. 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) ........................................................................................ 13, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222 Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2001 Withdrawn
`
`Description
`
`2002
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`160058 and Certified English Translation (“Fujiwara”)
`
`2003 Withdrawn
`
`2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,215 (“Flora”)
`
`2005
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Jakel, Unified Patents, LLC v.
`MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413 (Dec. 30, 2021) (redacted version)
`
`2006
`
`3 Questions for Unified Patents CEO Post-Oil States (Part II)
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2022-00031, Paper 1 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2021)
`
`Brief of Amicus Curiae Unified Patents Inc. in Cuozzo Speed
`Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee et al.
`
`Unified Patents September 3, 2021 Press Release regarding
`MemoryWeb IPR
`
`2010
`
`Unified Patents September 9, 2021 email regarding MemoryWeb IPR
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (FAQs)
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/faq)
`
`Case Readiness Status Report, MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
`21-cv-411 (W.D. Tex.) (Sept. 3, 2021)
`
`Amended Complaint, MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-411
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222 Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`(W.D. Tex.) (Nov. 24, 2021)
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`Excerpts from Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.’s Initial Invalidity Contentions,
`MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-411 (W.D. Tex.) (Jan. 31,
`2022)
`
`Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Scheduling Order, MemoryWeb, LLC
`v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc., Case No. 21-cv-411 (W.D. Tex.) (Oct. 1, 2021)
`
`2016
`
`MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc., 6:18-cv-00308, (W.D. Texas) D.I. 83
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`IAM, “The last thing anyone should think about WDTX is that it is
`patent plaintiff friendly, says Albright” (Apr. 7, 2020)
`
`Pages from The Way Back Machine The Wayback Machine-
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000510141416/http://www.photo.net:80
`
`2019
`
`Cluster Map, Thumbnail, First Combination Comparison
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2007-
`323544 and Certified English Translation (“Takakura”)
`
`Patent Owner Response, Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2021-01413, Paper 30 (Redacted Version)
`
`Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Philip Greenspun dated August 26,
`2022
`
`Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D.
`
`Corrected Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Philip Greenspun dated January 19,
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222 Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`2023
`
`Views 1 – 6 Comparison
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413,
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal and For Entry of Protective Order (Paper
`10)
`
`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 Chain between Counsel for Patent Owner and Counsel for
`Petitioner (Mar. 13-15, 2023)
`
`Unified Patents Document Subpoena
`
`Unified Patents Testimony Subpoena
`
`Samsung Document Production Requests
`
`Email Chain between Counsel for Patent Owner and Counsel for
`Petitioner (June. 5-9, 2023)
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`Declaration of Jennifer Hayes
`
`2038
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Order
`Identifying Real Party in Interest (Public Version) (Paper 79)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Brief on Additional Discovery and Subpoenas
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to the Board’s June 15, 2023 Order (Paper 38), MemoryWeb, LLC
`
`(“MemoryWeb” or “Patent Owner”) hereby submits its brief addressing the issues
`
`set forth in Exhibit 3004, including MemoryWeb’s motion for authorization to
`
`apply for subpoenas directed
`
`to Unified Patents, LLC (“Unified”), and
`
`MemoryWeb’s motion for additional discovery from Petitioner Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” 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 on October 30, 2021 challenging claims 1-19 based on the
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual (“A3UM”) and Belitz (hereinafter, “the Apple IPR”).
`
`Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00031. Samsung filed the third
`
`petition—which is the basis of this proceeding—on December 3, 2021 challenging
`
`claims 1-19 based on Okamura and Belitz (hereinafter, “the Samsung IPR”).
`
`A. The Unified IPR
`MemoryWeb challenged the identification of Unified as the sole RPI in the
`
`Unified IPR prior to institution. Ex. 2038, 2. The Unified Institution Decision
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`declined to address whether Apple and Samsung were unnamed RPIs “because
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`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. Mr. Jakel’s deposition testimony provided
`
`important context to the content of the documents Unified produced. See, e.g., Id.,
`
`5, 23. Unified designated much of the discovery as confidential and moved to seal
`
`it pursuant to a Protective Order. See Ex. 2028 (“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. 2038, 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. 2038, 34; Ex. 2029. After
`
`considering the parties’ arguments and evidence—much of which is subject to the
`
`Unified Protective Order—the Board concluded that “Unified has a long-term,
`
`established, mutually beneficial relationship with its members, Apple and
`
`Samsung.” Ex. 2038, 33. The Board also found “that Apple and Samsung are clear
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`beneficiaries to” the Unified IPR and “Unified is representing their interests.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`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. 2038, 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 “the Unified FWD”). See
`
`Ex. 2030, 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 Apple and Samsung because they were not participants to the Unified
`
`IPR, even though none of Unified, Apple, and Samsung sought to involve Apple
`
`and Samsung in the Unified IPR. Ex. 2031, 5. The Director granted Unified’s
`
`
`1 MemoryWeb has requested rehearing of certain unpatentability findings in the
`
`Unified FWD.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`request and vacated the Board’s RPI Order (“the Director Decision”) because, in
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`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. 3001; Ex. 3003.
`
`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. 3001, 13; see also Ex. 3003, 2. Unified indicated
`
`that it would only produce such materials subject to appropriate protections and
`
`“pursuant to a valid third-party subpoena.” Ex. 3001, 3; see also Ex. 3002, 15:9-
`
`16:12 (arguing that “the only way” for Unified to produce its confidential
`
`information would be via “a third-party subpoena from the appropriate district
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`court”).
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`B.
`Samsung’s IPR
`Samsung filed its Petition challenging the ‘228 patent on December 3, 2021.
`
`Samsung was aware of the Unified IPR at least as early as December 2021 because
`
`the Petition affirmatively identified the Unified IPR as a related matter. Pet., 92.
`
`The Petition also discussed the Unified IPR in its arguments regarding the General
`
`Plastic factors. Id., 82-88.
`
`Samsung’s Petition identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. as the RPIs. Pet., 92. MemoryWeb does not contend that
`
`Samsung failed to name Unified as an RPI in this proceeding; rather, it was
`
`Unified that failed to name Samsung as an RPI in the Unified IPR.
`
`C. MemoryWeb Promptly Sought to Terminate this IPR in View of
`the Unified RPI Order
`The day before the Board issued the Unified FWD and the oral argument in
`
`this proceeding, MemoryWeb notified Samsung that it intended “to seek
`
`authorization from the Board to (1) move to terminate IPR2022-00222 because
`
`Samsung would be estopped from maintaining this IPR pursuant to at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)”
`
`in
`
`light of Unified’s updated mandatory notices
`
`acknowledging the Board’s finding that Samsung was an RPI. Ex. 2032, 3; see 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.25(b) (“[a] party should seek relief promptly after the need for relief is
`
`identified”). MemoryWeb could not have moved to terminate this IPR unless and
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`until the Unified IPR resulted in a final written decision. Infra, § III.B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`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) Samsung’s relationship with Unified; (v)
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Samsung’s interest in and benefit from the Unified IPR; (vi) whether Unified is
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`representing Samsung’s interest; and (vii) whether Samsung funded, directed, or
`
`influenced the Unified IPR. RPX Corp. 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. 2038, 14-15.
`
`1.
`RPI Procedure
`The Director Decision provided explicit guidance that “[t]he Board can and
`
`should make a determination” of Samsung’s RPI status in this proceeding rather
`
`than the Unified IPR. Ex. 2038, 5. MemoryWeb is unaware of any guidance prior
`
`to the Director Decision 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. 3002, 49:7-20. Given the lack of
`
`guidance to the contrary prior to the Director Decision, MemoryWeb’s decision to
`
`litigate Samsung’s RPI status in the Unified IPR—rather than this proceeding—
`
`was reasonable and appropriate. Indeed, the RPI Order agreed 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. 2038, 6.
`
`The IPR statute provides that a petition “may be considered only if” it
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`“identifies all” RPIs. 35 U.S.C. § 312. It was Unified’s petition—not Samsung’s
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`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
`
`Samsung’s identification of RPIs in this proceeding is incorrect.
`
`Federal Circuit authority also supported litigating Samsung’s RPI status in
`
`the Unified IPR rather than this proceeding. The Federal Circuit has instructed that
`
`the petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to show that its identification of RPIs
`
`is correct. Worlds, 903 F.3d at 1242-43. That guidance does not address the
`
`burdens here where the patent owner must prove that a non-party failed to identify
`
`the petitioner as an RPI during a different proceeding filed by the non-party, which
`
`is what is now required by the Director Decision. In a similar vein, the Board must
`
`consider several factors in the RPI analysis that turn on Unified’s conduct and
`
`business structure. AIT II, Paper 128 at 10; Ex. 2038, 14-15. Litigating those issues
`
`outside of the Unified IPR requires third-party discovery from Unified because the
`
`Protective Order prevented MemoryWeb from introducing Unified’s confidential
`
`materials into evidence in this proceeding and Unified refused to share that
`
`information without a court order. Supra, § II.A.3.
`
`MemoryWeb “should not be forced to defend against later judicial or
`
`administrative attacks on the same or related grounds by a party that is so closely
`
`related to the original petitioner as to qualify as a real party in interest.” AIT I, 897
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`F.3d at 1350. Requiring MemoryWeb to prove in each subsequent IPR challenging
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`the ‘228 patent that the petitioner was an RPI to the Unified IPR (e.g., through
`
`third-party discovery) is contrary to this principal and the purposes of the estoppel
`
`statute. MemoryWeb acknowledges that the Director Decision now requires
`
`MemoryWeb prove Apple and Samsung’s RPI status separately in their
`
`proceedings but was and still is unaware of any authority suggesting this result
`
`prior to the Director Decision.
`
`While the Director Decision cited the Board’s precedential decision in
`
`SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., the Director Decision substantially
`
`expanded SharkNinja’s holding and represents new guidance or an intervening
`
`change in the law. Ex. 2031, 4 (citing SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11
`
`(PTAB Oct. 6, 2020). In SharkNinja, there was “no allegation or evidence that” the
`
`unnamed RPI was “barred or estopped” or “purposely omitted . . . to gain some
`
`advantage.” SharkNinja, Paper 11 at 19. The Board instituted the IPR because
`
`naming all RPIs was “a procedural requirement that can be corrected” and the
`
`petitioner “offered to update its mandatory notices and identify” the unnamed RPI.
`
`Id. at 18. The Director Decision’s holding that the Board should never decide
`
`whether a petition failed to an RPI in a proceeding unless the failure results in a
`
`time-bar or estoppel in that proceeding significantly expanded SharkNinja beyond
`
`its holding and the facts in that case.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Samsung argues that MemoryWeb should have litigated Samsung’s RPI
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`status in this proceeding because doing so in the Unified IPR violated Samsung’s
`
`due process rights. See, e.g., Ex. 3002, 11:16-12:4. But the Board has previously
`
`rejected that argument. In Kofax, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., the Board
`
`terminated Kofax’s IPR in view of a final written decision in an earlier IPR in
`
`which Kofax was a co-petitioner with Ubisoft, Inc. (“Ubisoft”) and Cambium
`
`Learning Group, Inc. (“Cambium”). IPR2015-01207, Paper 22 at 1, 11-12 (PTAB
`
`June 2, 2016). Kofax argued that the Board should defer termination until it ruled
`
`on motions for joinder in two related IPRs in which Ubisoft, Cambium, and Zebra
`
`Technologies Corporation (“Zebra”) were co-petitioners. Id. at 2. The Board
`
`disagreed and found that Zebra, “although not a petitioner in the earlier
`
`proceeding, is identified as” an RPI with Ubisoft and Cambium and thus if joined,
`
`Zebra “would be estopped under 315(e) because it is a real party in interest.” Id.
`
`Zebra requested rehearing of the Board’s termination order, arguing that it
`
`was not a party or an RPI to the earlier proceeding and that it was “deprived . . . of
`
`its due process rights.” Kofax, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2015-01207,
`
`Paper 24 at 1, 4 (PTAB July 20, 2016). The Board rejected that argument because
`
`there was “no authority for an alleged real party in interest (RPI) to be notified
`
`or permitted to present any facts or arguments on this issue in the context of an
`
`RPI determination.” Id. at 4-5 (internal quotation marks omitted). This decision
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`further supports that litigating Samsung’s RPI status in the Unified IPR was
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`consistent with Board procedures and demonstrates how the Director Decision
`
`constitutes a new approach.
`
`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).
`
`When a first IPR results in a final written decision and there is a second IPR
`
`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
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise stated, emphasis shown in case and evidence cites is added.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`IPR. See, e.g., Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, IPR2018-01248, Paper 34 at
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`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 (Jan. 25, 2018).
`
`C. 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. SAMSUNG’S RPI STATUS IN THE UNIFIED IPR CAN GIVE RISE
`TO ESTOPPEL
`Good cause exists for MemoryWeb to proceed with its contemplated motion
`
`to terminate. MemoryWeb has expended significant resources unnecessarily
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`defending three successive, related IPRs. MemoryWeb also expended significant
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`resources proving that Apple and Samsung were RPIs in the Unified IPR. It would
`
`be manifestly unfair if MemoryWeb were deprived of an opportunity to present
`
`arguments and evidence as to why Samsung is estopped, when it already proved
`
`that Samsung was an RPI to the Unified IPR, simply because the Director issued
`
`new guidance turning the procedure MemoryWeb followed on its head. Any
`
`alleged prejudice to Samsung pales in comparison to the harm to MemoryWeb, and
`
`Samsung will have an opportunity to adequately respond. See Ex. 3004.
`
`The evidence MemoryWeb seeks to introduce with its motion to terminate
`
`“could not have been obtained earlier” and its consideration “would be in the
`
`interests-of-justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`While MemoryWeb possessed information it now seeks to discover from
`
`Unified via subpoenas in this proceeding, that information was covered by the
`
`Unified Protective Order. More fundamentally, the bases for MemoryWeb’s
`
`request for additional discovery include (1) the Unified FWD, which issued only
`
`two days before oral argument, and (2) the Director Decision, which occurred
`
`months after oral argument. Ex. 2030; Ex. 2031.
`
`It is in the interests of justice for the Board to consider evidence regarding
`
`Samsung’s RPI status in the Unified IPR in this proceeding. When the “evidence is
`
`reasonably viewed as material, and the opponent has adequate opportunity to
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`respond and to produce contrary evidence, the interest of justice weighs on the side
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on RPI, Estoppel, and Discovery
`
`of admitting the evidence.” Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corp., 941
`
`F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the evidence showing that Samsung is an
`
`RPI to the Unified IPR is material as it gives rise to estoppel and a basis for
`
`termination. Supra, § III.B. Samsung will not suffer undue prejudice because it
`
`will have an adequate opportunity to respond and produce contrary evidence under
`
`the parties’ agreement for the second phase of briefing. Ex. 3004.
`
`The Board has allowed the introduction of supplemental informati