Filed on behalf of: Unified Patents, LLC
`
`Entered: April 13, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`- vs. -
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`Case IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
`DIRECTOR REVIEW OF FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`I.
`INITIAL PROCEDURAL MATTER ............................................................. 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................................................. 1
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The panel decided the RPI issue in the wrong proceeding,
`misallocated the burden and unfairly prejudiced later petitioners ........ 2
`Samsung and Apple are not RPIs .......................................................... 4
`1.
`Unified did not file this IPR at the behest of, or on behalf
`of, Apple or Samsung IPR .......................................................... 7
`Unified’s business model deters future NPEs from
`obtaining bad patents and asserting them (RPX factors a-
`d) ................................................................................................. 9
`Apple and Samsung did not desire, or benefit from,
`Unified’s IPR (RPX factors e-g) ............................................... 14
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`SUPREME COURT
`
` Page(s)
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008)..................................................................................... 3, 5
`
`CIRCUIT COURTS
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. (“AIT”),
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................... 6, 10, 11, 14
`
`Everport Terminal Services, Inc. v. NLRB,
`47 F.4th 782 (D.C. Cir. 2022) .......................................................................... 8
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`-- F.4th ----, 2023 WL 2749199 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023) ............................... 3
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc.,
`989 F.3d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................. 5, 7, 14
`
`Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc.,
`869 F. 3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 2
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`PTAB — General
`RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (Oct. 2, 2020) (precedential)
`(“RPX”) ...................................................................................... 6-8, 10, 14, 15
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00615, Paper 40 (Feb. 3, 2022) (precedential)
`(“Netlist”) ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`ii
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`9.
`SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential)
`(“SharkNinja”) ............................................................................................. 1-4
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`
`
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`
`
`Streck, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01577, Paper 20 (Apr. 22, 2022)
`“Streck” .......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc.,
`IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 (Jan. 24, 2019) (precedential)
`(“Ventex”) .................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`PTAB — Unified Patents
`12. Unified Patents, LLC v. American Patents, LLC,
`IPR2019-00482, Paper 36 (DI, Aug. 6, 2019)
`Paper 104 (FWD, Jul. 13, 2020)
`Papers 115, 132 (public FWD) POP Request denied, Paper 121 (Oc.
`26, 2020) reh’g denied, Paper 122 (Dec. 4, 2022)
`aff’d, No. 2021-1635, (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10 2022) (RPI briefed)
`(“American”) .......................................................................................... 5, 9, 12
`
`
`
`13. Unified Patents, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00285, Paper 10 (DI, Jun. 17, 2022)
`(“Arigna”) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`14. Unified Patents, LLC v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC,
`IPR2016-00364, Paper 13 (DI, Jun. 27, 2016)
`(“AVS”) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`15. Unified Patents Inc. v. Barkan Wireless IP Holdings, LP,
`IPR2018-01186, Paper 24 (DI, Dec. 7, 2018), Paper 27 (Public
`DI), Paper 56 (FWD, Dec. 4, 2019), Paper 57 (Public FWD)
`aff’d 838 Fed.Appx. 565 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021) (RPI briefed)
`(“Barkan”) ....................................................................................... 5, 9, 14, 15
`
`
`
`16. Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC,
`IPR2018-00952, Paper 31 (DI, Dec. 20, 2018),
`Paper 60 (FWD, Dec. 19, 2019), Paper 68 (Public FWD)
`(“Bradium”) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`
`17. Unified Patents, LLC v. Carucel Investments,
`IPR2019-01079, Paper 9 (DI, Nov. 12, 2019)
`(“Carucel”) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`18. Unified Patents Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC,
`IPR2018-00091, Paper 33 (FWD, May 22, 2019),
`EX1039 (Public FWD)
`(“CCE”) ................................................................................................. 5, 8, 13
`
`
`
`19. Unified Patents Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00586, Paper 9 (DI, Mar. 21, 2014)
`(“Clouding”) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`20. Unified Patents Inc. v. Digital Stream IP,
`IPR2016-01749, Paper 22 (FWD, Mar. 9, 2018),
`(“Digital Stream”) ........................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`21. Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC,
`IPR2014-01252, Paper 37 (DI, Feb. 12, 2015),
`(“Dragon”) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`22. Unified Patents, LLC v. Engle Grange, LLC
`IPR2020-01334, Paper 37 (FWD, Jan. 19, 2022)
`aff’d, No. 2022-1524 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2023) (RPI not briefed)
`(“Engle Grange”) ......................................................................................... 2-3
`
`23. Unified Patents, LLC v. Fat Statz, LLC,
`IPR2020-01665, Paper 51 (Public FWD, Apr. 4, 2022)
`(“Fat Statz”) ............................................................................................. 2-3, 5
`
`
`
`24. Unified Patents Inc. v. Hall Data Sync Tech,
`IPR2015-00874, Paper 11 (DI, Sep. 17, 2015),
`(“Hall Data”) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`25. Unified Patents Inc. v. iMTX Strategic, LLC,
`IPR2015-01061, Paper 9 (DI Oct. 15, 2015)
`(“iMTX”) .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`iv
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`26. Unified Patents, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC,
`IPR2022-00429, Paper 12 (DI, Aug. 11, 2022)
`(“IVII”) ....................................................................................................... 5, 13
`
`
`
`27. Unified Patents Inc. v. Mobility Workx, LLC,
`IPR2018-01150, Paper 9 (DI, Dec. 3, 2018)
`aff’d, No. 2020-1441 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 14, 2022) (RPI not briefed)
`(“Mobility Workx”) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`28. Unified Patents Inc. v. MONKEYMedia, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00059, Paper 15 (DI, Apr. 16, 2018)
`(“MONKEYMedia”) ......................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`29. Unified Patents Inc. v. MV3Partners, LLC,
`IPR2019-00474, Paper 9 (DI, Jul. 16, 2019)
`(“MV3”) ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`30. Unified Patents Inc. v. Nonend Inventions N.V.,
`IPR2016-00174, Paper 10 (DI, May 12, 2016),
`(“Nonend”) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`31. Unified Patents Inc. v. Plectrum LLC,
`IPR2017-01430, Paper 8 (DI, Nov. 14, 2017),
`Paper 30 (FWD, Nov. 13, 2018)
`(“Plectrum”) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`32. Unified Patents, LLC v. Qurio Holdings, Inc,
`IPR2015-01940, Paper 7 (DI, Apr. 13, 2016)
`(“Qurio”) .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`33. Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC,
`IPR2018-00883, Paper 29 (DI, Oct. 11, 2018),
`Paper 36 (Public DI)
`(“Realtime”) ..................................................................................... 5, 9, 12, 13
`
`
`
`34. Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00199, Paper 33 (FWD, May 31, 2019),
`Paper 41 (Public FWD)
`(“Uniloc-00199”) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`v
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`35. Unified Patents, LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-00453, Paper 38 (FWD, Jul. 22, 2020)
`(“Uniloc-00453”) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`
`
`
`36. Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2017-02148, Paper 9 (DI, Apr. 17, 2018),
`Paper 74 (FWD, Apr. 11, 2019), Paper 82 (Public FWD),
`reh’g denied, Paper 91 (Jul. 17, 2019)
`(“Uniloc-02148”) ............................................................................. 5, 9, 12, 13
`
`
`
`37. Unified Patents Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC,
`IPR2018-00067, Paper 54 (FWD, May 1, 2019),
`Paper 59 (Public FWD)
`(“USR”) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`38. Unified Patents, LLC v. Velos Media, LLC,
`IPR2019-00707, Paper 55 (FWD, Sep. 3, 2020)
`(“Velos”) .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`RULES AND REGULATIONS
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 ....................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51 ....................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.52 ....................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`vi
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`I.
`INITIAL PROCEDURAL MATTER
`Unified seeks Director Review or POP Review in the alternative. The panel
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`
`addressed the RPI issue in a separate order (Paper 56, “Order”), and revisited RPI in
`
`the final decision (Paper 58, “Decision,” 3-5). Unified therefore timely requested
`
`rehearing and POP Review of the Order (Papers 62, 63), and now timely requests
`
`Director Review of the RPI portion of the Decision to ensure that Unified may obtain
`
`judicial review of the RPI determination (if needed). In view of the tangled posture,
`
`Unified asks the Director (or POP) to make clear that the time for appeal is tolled
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(b).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`Director review is appropriate for two reasons. First, the panel erred by
`
`addressing in this proceeding whether Apple and Samsung were RPIs as “a
`
`necessary precursor” to determining whether they would be estopped in a
`
`subsequent proceeding. Order, 6. Doing so in this IPR, with no bar or estoppel at
`
`issue and without Apple and Samsung’s participation, violated their due process
`
`rights, contravened this Board’s precedential SharkNinja decision, and created a
`
`procedural morass.
`
`Second, the panel is incorrect on the merits. It created a Board split because
`
`all previous panels have determined that Unified is the sole RPI based on essentially
`
`the same evidence. This panel came to the opposite conclusion than previous panels
`
`1
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`because it failed to properly apply binding precedent. This decision is also arbitrary
`
`and capricious because it lacks a reasoned explanation for arriving at the opposite
`
`result. Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 869 F.3d 1309, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Board
`
`must provide “rational explanation” for “reaching inconsistent conclusions in
`
`similar, related cases”). Unified filed this IPR to deter future assertions of this and
`
`other invalid patents. Unified did so of its own accord; it did not seek to extricate
`
`anyone from litigation. It had no pre-filing communications with Apple or Samsung
`
`regarding the ’228 patent or those parties’ litigations, and there is no rational reason
`
`to suspect (or evidence to support a conclusion) that those parties wanted Unified to
`
`file its petition challenging the ’228 patent—especially since they each filed their
`
`own, with divergent arguments and different claims.
`
`Accordingly, the Director should reverse, or at least vacate, the portion of the
`
`Decision referencing the Order and the Order itself. Apple, Samsung, and other
`
`future petitioners should not be prejudiced by this improper, incorrect determination.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`The panel decided the RPI issue in the wrong proceeding,
`misallocated the burden and unfairly prejudiced later petitioners
`The Decision erred in reaching the RPI issue because there was no allegation
`
`that any party would be “barred or estopped from this proceeding.” SharkNinja, 18-
`
`20 (emphasis added). While “‘patent owners should not be forced to defend against
`
`later judicial or administrative attacks on the same or related ground,’” SharkNinja
`
`2
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`deferred the RPI issue because that “[wa]s not the case before [the Board].” Id.; Fat
`
`Statz, Paper 51, 6-9; Engle Grange, Paper 37, 4-7. Even if SharkNinja applies only
`
`at the institution stage, the Director should extend it to also apply post-institution to
`
`avoid the wasteful and harmful results exhibited here.
`
`Here, the panel erred by issuing a non-binding advisory opinion that
`
`prejudices non-parties to this proceeding. Specifically, it prejudices Apple and
`
`Samsung because it prejudged the RPI issue without their participation. After
`
`applying SharkNinja at institution, the panel reached the RPI issue post-institution
`
`despite the lack of any allegation that any party would be estopped in this IPR.
`
`Decision 4-5. The panel cast aside SharkNinja but did not give Apple or Samsung,
`
`the parties it seeks to estop, any opportunity to participate. Even worse, this process
`
`wrongfully shifted the burden of proof. Rather than properly litigating the RPI and
`
`estoppel issues in the other IPRs, MemoryWeb litigated it where it would have no
`
`effect. Now MemoryWeb seeks to bind Apple and Samsung with the decision in this
`
`case, estopping Apple and Samsung in their later-filed IPRs (which are themselves
`
`past oral argument). MemoryWeb (as the movant seeking to terminate) bears the
`
`burden in each case of showing that Apple/Samsung is an RPI. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)
`
`(movant bears the burden); Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 906-907 (2008) (burden
`
`lies with party asserting “nonparty preclusion”); Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve
`
`Corp., -- F.4th ----, 2023 WL 2749199 at *14 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023) (citing cases).
`
`3
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`MemoryWeb’s strategy of litigating RPI here, where no estoppel can take effect,
`
`saddles Unified with the burden of proving a negative. SharkNinja should have
`
`precluded such tactics, which created a procedural morass that is still unfolding. As
`
`it discussed during its March 31, 2023 conference call with the parties to all three
`
`IPRs, the panel is considering whether to circumvent the Board’s discovery rules by
`
`issuing an unprecedented protective order granting non-parties Apple and Samsung
`
`permission to “inspect” Unified’s protected Attorneys’ Eyes Only information. But
`
`permitting “inspection” is document production (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 34), and
`
`Apple/Samsung have not moved for discovery from Unified. MemoryWeb should
`
`have properly raised this issue where it matters—the Apple and Samsung IPRs—
`
`and properly obtained discovery from Apple and Samsung (e.g., membership
`
`agreements, communications) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51; Netlist, 4-5 (Director Vidal
`
`granting RPI discovery post-institution). And to the extent the parties needed
`
`information solely in Unified’s possession, they could have sought it via 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.52. That MemoryWeb chose not to pursue the correct path is no reason to throw
`
`the discovery rules out the window.
`
`Samsung and Apple are not RPIs
`B.
`This panel got it wrong: Unified is the sole RPI of this proceeding. The Board
`
`has issued over two dozen RPI decisions involving Unified and its members and—
`
`until now—it has always arrived at the same correct result on effectively the same
`
`4
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`facts: Unified is the sole RPI. See Table of Authorities (TOA), supra, Case Nos. 12-
`
`21, 23-38. Nothing material has changed, and this panel would have arrived at the
`
`correct result, too, had it followed binding precedent. It did not and as a result has
`
`created a split in the Board not only in its conclusion but also in its flawed analysis
`
`of the RPX factors.
`
`The Order purportedly applied the RPX factors (Order, 20 n.7), but did so
`
`incorrectly and without applying all of the facts of record. This panel failed to heed
`
`the Federal Circuit’s instructions that the “heart of the inquiry focuse[s] on whether
`
`a petition has been filed at a party’s behest,” and a “key consideration of the RPI
`
`analysis is control.” Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., 989 F.3d 1018, 1028 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). There was no evidence of any overt or hidden control here.
`
` The case-specific RPI analysis demands a “constrained approach to non-
`
`party preclusion.” Taylor, 553 U.S. at 899 (emphasis added). The Board’s
`
`precedential Ventex decision provides an example of the required constraint sorely
`
`lacking from the panel’s opinion. In particular, the Board “must be cautious not to
`
`overextend the reasoning set forth in AIT,” as this panel did, “to any situation where
`
`‘a party benefits generally from the filing of a Petition and also has a relationship
`
`with the Petitioner.’” Ventex at 10 (quoting Unified case Realtime at 14-15); see also
`
`Taylor, 553 U.S. at 901 (“identity of interests and some kind of relationship” is
`
`insufficient).
`
`5
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`The Board “must” also “ask who, from a practical and equitable standpoint,
`
`will benefit from” the IPR-at-issue. RPX, 8 (quoting AIT, 897 F.3d at 1349). There
`
`is no evidence that Apple and Samsung obtained any meaningful benefit from
`
`Unified’s IPR, other than the same diffuse benefits provided by Unified’s deterrence
`
`efforts that are also enjoyed by anyone that participates in the relevant technology
`
`zone. The panel was also required to determine “whether [Unified] can be said to be
`
`representing [Apple/Samsung’s] interest after examining its relationship with
`
`[them].” Id. (quoting AIT, 897 F.3d at 1353 and citing Ventex at 8). Again, there is
`
`no evidence that Unified represented anyone’s interests beyond a general interest in
`
`deterring assertions of invalid patents.
`
`At bottom, this panel—unlike all that came before it—concluded that other
`
`parties are RPIs to Unified’s IPR without any different evidence that could justify
`
`its different result. To the contrary, the Board acknowledged the same key facts that
`
`that have always correctly supported a finding that Unified is the only RPI: Unified
`
`did not communicate with Apple and Samsung about the ’228 patent or their
`
`litigations before filing the IPR (Order, 22-24, 26-27); Apple/Samsung “may not,”
`
`and did not, “decide which patents Unified challenges” (Order, 30); Unified’s
`
`business model is not, like RPX’s, to extricate clients from existing litigations—
`
`Unified instead seeks to “deter [NPEs] who assert bad patents” and “to reduce NPE
`
`activity” in technology zones. Order, 21. This panel arrived at the opposite
`
`6
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`conclusion of the many panels that came before by failing to follow the law and
`
`misinterpreting evidence in ways that no panel has done before.
`
`1.
`
`Unified did not file this IPR at the behest of, or on behalf of,
`Apple or Samsung IPR
`The “heart of the [RPI] inquiry focuse[s] on whether a petition has been filed
`
`at a party’s behest.” Facebook, 989 F.3d at 1027-28 (internal quotations omitted).
`
`And here, Unified did not file its IPR at anyone’s behest or on behalf of anyone. The
`
`panel should have agreed with the panels that came before it. The panel
`
`acknowledged that Unified had no pre-filing discussions regarding the ’228 patent
`
`or MemoryWeb’s litigation with Apple or Samsung (Order, 22-24), there were no
`
`meetings or any opportunity for direction or control over this IPR (Order, 26-27),
`
`and no Unified members, including Apple and Samsung, “decide which patents
`
`Unified challenges.” Order, 30, 22-24, 26-27.
`
`In stark contrast, RPX regularly and frequently communicated with Salesforce
`
`regarding the challenged patents, failed CBMs, and “effectively act[ed] as if
`
`Salesforce had requested” RPX to file its three IPRs to “extricate” Salesforce from
`
`its litigation with AIT. RPX, 26, 33-34
`
`Searching for some evidence of control to support its RPI conclusion, the
`
`panel cherry-picked an inapplicable
`
` in
`
` decade-old
`
`providing for an
`
` and from that
`
` alone, sua sponte
`
`concluded that there is an
`
`7
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
` and its members in the form of an
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
` Order, 24-
`
`26. But it is undisputed that this
`
` never existed. EX1023, ¶19 n.1.
`
` and, as a previous Board panel noted, the
`
` was
`
` CCE, Paper 33, 14-15. Even worse, the panel found
`
`that this
`
` tended to show that Apple/Samsung are RPIs without any
`
`evidence of the non-existent
`
`control of Unified’s IPR. This contradicts
`
`RPX, where the Board found that the existence of an actual common board member
`
`was a neutral fact because there was no evidence of control by the board member.
`
`RPX, 28-29.
`
`The panel wrongly concluded that the lack of communications—Unified’s
`
`attempt to carefully follow the law—indicated that Unified engaged in “a willful
`
`blindness strategy[.]” Order, 28 (quoting RPX, 17-20). “The Board neither
`
`acknowledged nor explained this apparent Catch-22, which is a telltale sign of
`
`arbitrary and capricious agency action.” Everport Terminal Services, Inc. v. NLRB,
`
`47 F.4th 782, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Indeed, the Board did not even find that RPX
`
`was willfully blind, despite the egregious facts of that case. RPX, 34-35. Rather, the
`
`Board found that RPX was merely complying with the wrong law, namely VirnetX’s
`
`“unduly restrictive” test for RPI. Id. In contrast, Unified meets and exceeds the
`
`correct legal requirements to avoid even the appearance of an RPX-like situation.
`
`8
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`Unified, inter alia, forbids pre-filing communications with its members about any
`
`of its plans or their desires regarding filing challenges. Reply, 25-27, 33. Indeed, the
`
`only communications regarding this IPR were post-filing transmissions of public
`
`information sent to all members and the public, including an email that was received
`
`even by MemoryWeb, and the same public information was posted on Unified’s
`
`website and broadcast via social media. Compare EX1026/2014 (email received by
`
`all subscribers, including MemoryWeb) and EX1027 with EX1028 and 1029 (email
`
`sent to large members); Reply, 30 (citing EX2036, 55:2-56:5, explaining why
`
`separate mailing lists exist); EX1021 (public blog post); EX1023 ¶17.
`
`In sum, this panel should have—like many panels before it—found that
`
`Unified’s lack of any pre-filing communications, the lack of any overt or covert
`
`control, and innocuous post-filing communications all indicated that Unified is the
`
`only RPI of this IPR. E.g., American, Paper 115, 47-49; Barkan, Paper 57, 10-12, IV
`
`II, Paper 12, 7-11; Uniloc-02148, Paper 82, 20-23; Realtime, Paper 37, 14-17. Not
`
`doing so has created a panel split regarding how to apply at least RPX factors c, d,
`
`h, and i as well as willful blindness.
`
`2.
`
`Unified’s business model deters future NPEs from obtaining
`bad patents and asserting them (RPX factors a-d)
`The panel acknowledged that “[t]he evidence [] shows that Unified seeks to
`
`‘deter [NPEs] who assert bad patents (aka Patent Trolls)’” and “‘benefits’ [] its
`
`member companies by ‘working to reduce NPE activity through monitoring … and
`
`9
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`USPTO challenges.’” Order, 21 (quoting EX2017 at 1). Mr. Jakel further explained
`
`in unrebutted testimony exactly how Unified decides to take deterrence action.
`
`Unified
`
`38:19-39:19. Next, Unified
`
`Unified
`
` EX2036,
`
` Id., 39:20-40:7. Ultimately,
`
` Id., 40:7-41:16. Finally, such action can
`
`take many forms solely at Unified’s discretion, including publishing prior art, reissue
`
`protests, ex parte reexaminations, and inter partes reviews. Reply, 28-29 (citing
`
`EX1024, 4.2, EX1025, 3.2.).
`
` Unified stands in stark contrast to RPX, which decided to file IPRs based on
`
`factors that “benefit specific clients,” e.g., “the number of patents asserted in the
`
`campaign” and “the number of RPX clients…in suit.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1352 (italics
`
`in original). In contrast, Unified’s factors focus on the zones and the patents
`
`themselves.
`
`Further, RPX advertised that it helps its clients “quickly and cost-effectively
`
`extricate themselves from [NPE] lawsuits …, acquire a license to the litigated patent
`
`and selectively clear our clients from the suit.” RPX, 14 (internal quotations omitted,
`
`original emphases). The Board therefore concluded that RPX “exists in part to file
`
`10
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`IPR petitions” to extricate its clients from existing lawsuits, and this “is indicative
`
`of an RPI relationship” with Salesforce. Id., 26.
`
`In contrast, Unified advertises deterrence, not extrication from existing
`
`litigation. Seeking to draw a parallel to RPX, the panel pointed to a decade-old
`
`version of Unified’s website stating that there is “complete alignment between
`
`Unified Patents and its member companies.” Order, 21 (citing EX2016); see AIT,
`
`897 F.3d at 1357 (RPX advertised that “its interests are 100% aligned with those of
`
`its clients”). But even Unified’s old website shows that Unified and its members are
`
`“aligned” in a completely different manner—they seek future deterrence in
`
`technology zones, as Mr. Jakel explained above, not extrication from an existing
`
`suit. EX2016 (“deterring NPEs from encroaching on a [zone] in the first place” to
`
`provide “greater freedom to operate”). Unified further explained in its current
`
`website that, “Unified exists to break the cycle of [invalid] patent assertion.”
`
`EX2018, 2-3; see also EX2019, 1 (“Unified is a deterrence entity that seeks to deter
`
`the assertion of poor quality patents in certain technology zones.”).
`
`The panel also misleadingly cites Mr. Jakel’s testimony as showing that
`
`Unified chose to challenge the ’228 patent “precisely because” it was asserted
`
`against Samsung and Apple in particular. Order, 28, 31 (citing EX2036, 62:19-
`
`63:10, 99:16-101:14). Not so. Mr. Jakel merely testified that
`
`11
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
` EX2036, 62:19-63:10. As already explained,
`
`Unified
`
` Id. 39:10-
`
`15. Samsung was the tripwire in this case only because MemoryWeb sued them first.
`
`The panel assigned significant importance to
`
`, e.g., Order 23-24), and they demonstrate the same thing—
`
`. EX2033, 18-38.
`
`. EX2033, 18-38.
`
`it would be odd if they did not show up at all. EX2036, 117:20-118:1
`
`. The panel arbitrarily brushed off this evidence with a conclusory
`
`statement that it does not “detract from [its] finding” that Unified challenges patents
`
`because they are asserted against its members in particular. Order, 31. No evidence
`
`supports the panel’s unreasoned conclusion. And yet again, previous panels have
`
`uniformly and correctly concluded that a sued party merely receives the same diffuse
`
`deterrence benefit enjoyed by others in its zone—there are no “specific benefits …
`
`in return for its membership payments.” Realtime, Paper 36, 18; American Patents,
`
`Paper 115, 48-49; Uniloc-02148, Paper 82, 21-22.
`
`12
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021-01413 (U.S. 10,621,228)
`The panel also stated that “it is not credible to suggest that Apple and Samsung
`
`do not expect Unified to file petitions for IPRs against patents they are accused of
`
`infringing” in exchange for their membership dues. Order, 30 (citing nothing but
`
`dues amount at EX2036, 75:7-10, 89:16-20). The panel’s analysis is legally flawed
`
`and ignores the record. The issue is whether Apple/Samsung expected Unified to file
`
`an IPR challenging the ’228 patent, like Salesforce expected RPX to file three IPRs
`
`to extricate it from AIT’s lawsuit. It is patently unreasonable to conclude that, of the
`
`hundreds of patents asserted against Apple and Samsung (including the others filed
`
`by MemoryWeb), Apple and Samsung wanted Unified to challenge some claims of
`
`this patent. And the record is replete, including in the
`
`, with many
`
`deterrence activities and tools Unified provides all of which provide value and were
`
`ignored by this panel which wrongly solely focused on just one—IPRs. Reply, 24
`
`(citing EX1023, EX2033, EX2036). Indeed, previous panels unanimously disagreed
`
`with this panel. E.g., Uniloc-02148, Paper 82, 19-21 (“[T]he evidence shows
`
`Petitioner is representing the general interest that all subscribers to Petitioner’s
`
`[zones] have in mitigating litigation risk from patents in those zones.”); CCE,
`
`EX1039, 12-14 (“[Unified’s] business model … does not indicate that it acts as a
`
`proxy for its members.”); Realtime, Paper 36, 12-16; IVII, Paper 12, 11.
`
`13
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2091
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`
`Pet’r Req. for Dir. Review
`IPR2021