`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00360
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IPR2021-00922
`
`
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`I.
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 2
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Each of the Factors Weighs in Favor of the Board Granting the
`Motion for Joinder ................................................................................. 3
`1.
`Joinder with the Apple IPR Is Appropriate ................................ 4
`2.
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability ............................................................................ 5
`Joinder will Not Negatively Impact the Apple IPR Trial
`Schedule ...................................................................................... 5
`Procedures To Simplify Briefing and Discovery ........................ 6
`4.
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AT&T Services, Inc. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00649, Paper 12 at 7-17 (August 25, 2021) .......................................... 8
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) ........................................................... 3
`HTC v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC.,
`IPR2017-00512, Paper No. 12 (June 1, 2017) ...................................................... 1
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC.,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (Apr. 24, 2013) .................................................... 3
`Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 (Apr. 10, 2015) .................................................... 7
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2016-01023, Paper No. 20 (Oct. 27, 2016) .................................................... 5
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper No. 12 (Aug. 24, 2016) ................................................... 4
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC.,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 (Oct. 5, 2015) .............................................. 4, 5, 7
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ................................................................................................ 1, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 ....................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Google LLC (“Petitioner” or “Google”) respectfully submits this Motion for
`
`Joinder concurrently with a Petition (“the Google petition”) for inter partes review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 (“the ’079 patent”).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), Google
`
`requests institution of the concurrently filed Petition for inter partes review and
`
`joinder with Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC, IPR2021-00922 (“the
`
`Apple IPR” or “the Apple proceeding”), which the Board instituted on November
`
`29, 2021, and concerns the same claims 1–30 of the ’079 patent. This request is being
`
`submitted within the time set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Google submits that the request for joinder is consistent with the policy
`
`surrounding inter partes reviews, as it is the most expedient way “to secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b);
`
`see also HTC v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC., IPR2017-00512,
`
`Paper No. 12 at 5–6 (June 1, 2017). The Google petition and the Apple IPR are
`
`substantively identical; they contain the same grounds (based on the same prior-art
`
`combinations and supporting evidence) against the same claims (See Ex. 1017,
`
`illustrating changes between the instant Petition and the Petition in IPR2021-00922.)
`
`Further, upon joining the Apple proceeding, Google will act as an “understudy” and
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`will not assume an active role unless the current petitioner ceases to participate in
`
`the instituted IPR. Accordingly, the proposed joinder will neither unduly complicate
`
`the Apple IPR nor delay its schedule. As such, the joinder will promote judicial
`
`efficiency in determining the patentability of the ’079 patent without prejudice to
`
`Patent Owner. Apple does not oppose this motion for joinder.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`1.
`The ’079 patent is or was at issue in the following patent infringement
`
`actions: Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00123 (W.D. Tex.) (transferred to District of New Jersey
`
`as case number 2:21-cv-19234 (D.N.J)); 6:21-cv-00121 (W.D. Tex.); 6:21-cv-00122
`
`(W.D. Tex.); and consolidated cases 2:21-cv-00040 (E.D. Tex.) (defendant Huawei
`
`dismissed with prejudice); and 2:21-cv-00041 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`2.
`
`On May 18, 2021, Apple Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2021-00922) requesting cancellation of claims 1–30 of the ’079 patent.
`
`3.
`
`On November 29, 2021, the Board instituted the Apple petition for inter
`
`partes review as to all challenged claims and all grounds.
`
`4.
`
`The Google petition and the Apple IPR are substantially identical; they
`
`contain the same grounds (based on the same prior-art combinations and supporting
`
`evidence) against the same claims (See Ex. 1017.)
`
`5.
`
`The ’079 patent is or was also at issue in another IPR proceeding: Ccase
`
`No. IPR2022-00090. On November 5, 2021, LG Electronics, Inc., and LG
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc., concurrently filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2022-00090) requesting cancellation of claims 1–30 of the ’079 patent and a
`
`motion for joinder to IPR2021-00922.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standard
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the Board may grant a motion for joining an
`
`inter partes review petition with another inter partes review proceeding. The Board,
`
`in determining whether to exercise its discretion to grant joinder, considers (1) “why
`
`joinder is appropriate”; (2) “whether a new ground of unpatentability is raised in the
`
`second petition”; (3) “how the cost and schedule of the first proceeding will be
`
`impacted if joinder is granted”; and (4) “whether granting joinder will add to the
`
`complexity of the briefing and/or discovery.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 76
`
`(Nov. 2019); see also Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at
`
`4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Sols., Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17 at 3 (PTAB July 29, 2013).
`
`B.
`
`Each of the Factors Weighs in Favor of the Board Granting the
`Motion for Joinder
`All four factors weigh in favor of granting Google’s motion for joinder. The
`
`Google petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Apple IPR. Google
`
`does not present any new grounds of unpatentability. Additionally, as all issues are
`
`substantively identical and Google will act as an “understudy,” joinder will have
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`minimal or no impact on the pending schedule of the Apple IPR. See Sony Corp., et
`
`al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (Oct. 5, 2015) (granting
`
`motion for joinder where petitioners requested an “understudy” role). Moreover, the
`
`briefing and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, joinder is appropriate.
`
`Joinder with the Apple IPR Is Appropriate
`1.
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper 12
`
`at 9 (Aug. 24, 2016) (internal citations omitted). Here joinder with the Apple IPR is
`
`appropriate because the Google petition introduces identical arguments and the same
`
`grounds raised in the existing Apple proceeding (i.e., it challenges the same claims
`
`of the same patent, relies on the same expert declaration, and is based on the same
`
`grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the Apple petition). Other than
`
`minor differences, such as differences related to formalities of a different party filing
`
`the petition and an analysis of Fintiv factors, there are no changes to the facts,
`
`citations, evidence, or arguments introduced in the Google petition. Because these
`
`proceedings are substantively identical, good cause exists for joining this proceeding
`
`with the Apple IPR so that the Board, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`efficiently “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of the Google and
`
`Apple petitions in a single proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability
`The Google petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Apple IPR
`
`(i.e., challenging the same claims of the same patent, relying on the same expert
`
`declaration, and on the same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the
`
`Apple petition). See Sony, IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 5–6 (Oct. 5, 2015) (granting
`
`institution of IPR and motion for joinder where petitions relied “on the same prior
`
`art, same arguments, and same evidence, including the same expert and a
`
`substantively identical declaration”); see also Par Pharm., Inc., v. Novartis AG,
`
`IPR2016-01023, Paper 20 at 14 (Oct. 27, 2016) (granting motion for joinder where
`
`petitioners “do not assert any new ground of unpatentability that is not already being
`
`considered in [an instituted IPR proceeding], relying on the same arguments and
`
`evidence, and do not require any modification to the existing schedule”).
`
`3.
`
`Joinder will Not Negatively Impact the Apple IPR Trial
`Schedule
`Joinder will have minimal impact, if any, on the Apple IPR trial schedule
`
`because the Google petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability.
`
`See Sony Corp., IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (granting IPR and motion for joinder
`
`where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR]”). Further,
`
`Petitioner explicitly consents to the existing trial schedule. There are no new issues
`
`for the Board to address, and Patent Owner will not be required to present any
`
`additional responses or arguments.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response will also not be negatively impacted because the
`
`issues presented in the Google petition are identical to the issues presented in the
`
`Apple petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional analysis
`
`or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the petition in the
`
`Apple IPR. Also, because the Google petition relies on the same expert and the same
`
`declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed joined proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder with the Apple IPR does not unduly burden or negatively
`
`impact the trial schedule.
`
`Procedures To Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`4.
`Google explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, which will simplify
`
`briefing and discovery. Specifically, Google explicitly agrees, upon joining the
`
`Apple proceeding, that the following conditions, as previously approved by the
`
`Board in similar circumstances, shall apply so long as the current petition in
`
`IPR2021-00922 remains active:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`a. all filings by Google in the joined proceedings will be consolidated with the
`
`filings of the current petitioner, unless a filing concerns issues solely
`
`involving Google;
`
`b. Google shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already instituted
`
`by the Board in the Apple IPR, or introduce any argument or discovery not
`
`already introduced by the current petitioner;
`
`c. Google shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and the
`
`current petitioner concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`d. at deposition, Google shall not receive any direct, cross examination, or
`
`redirect time beyond that permitted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement
`
`between Patent Owner and the current petitioner.
`
`See Noven Pharm, Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 at 5 (Apr. 10,
`
`2015). Unless and until the current petitioner ceases to participate in the instituted
`
`IPR proceeding, Google will not assume an active role therein.
`
`Thus, by Google accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and the
`
`current petitioner can comply with the existing trial schedule without needing any
`
`duplicative efforts by the Board or Patent Owner. These steps will minimize any
`
`potential complications or delay that potentially may result by joinder. See Sony
`
`Corp., IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6–7 (granting IPR and motion for joinder
`
`because “joinder would increase efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`discovery, and would reduce costs and burdens on the parties as well as the Board”
`
`where petitioners agreed to an “understudy” role). Google is further willing to agree
`
`to any other reasonable conditions the Board deems necessary.1
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the factors discussed above, Google respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant institution of the Google petition and grant joinder with the Apple IPR.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 29, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Erika H. Arner/
`Erika H. Arner, Reg. No. 57,540
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`1 Google further notes that a joinder petition in these circumstances is not the type
`
`of serial petition to which a General Plastic’s analysis applies as there is no
`
`strategic advantage to be gained by filing this additional petition, and there are no
`
`concerns of “road mapping” the Patent Owner’s strategy because Petitioner has
`
`submitted a petition that is substantively identical to Apple’s petition. See AT&T
`
`Services, Inc. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2021-00649, Paper 12 at 7-17 (August
`
`25, 2021) (instituting IPR on a “me-too” petition despite being filed after the
`
`PTAB’s institution decision on the primary petition.).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-00922
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105, the undersigned certifies that on
`
`December 29, 2021, a copy of the foregoing Motion for Joinder to Inter Partes
`
`Review IPR2021-00922 was served by FedEx Priority Overnight on the
`
`correspondence address of record indicated in the Patent Office’s public PAIR
`
`system for U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079:
`
`Vito A. Ciaravino
`Warner Norcross + Judd LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`150 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 1500
`Grand Rapids, MI 49503
`
`Further, a courtesy copy of the foregoing was also sent via email to Patent
`
`Owner’s litigation counsel:
`
`Fred I. Williams (fwilliams@wsltrial.com)
`Michael Simmons (msimons@wsltrial.com)
`Jonathan L. Hardt (jhardt@wsltrial.com)
`Chad Ennis (cennis@wsltrial.com)
`Todd E. Landis (tlandis@wsltrial.com)
`John Wittenzellner (johnw@wsltrial.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /William Esper/
`William Esper
`Case Manager and PTAB Coordinator
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT, & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`