UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00669
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,918,196
`_________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO IPR2021-01552
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 2
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................... 3
`JOINDER WITH THE APPLE IPR PROCEEDING IS APPROPRIATE ....................... 3
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROPOSE NEW GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ...... 4
`JOINDER WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE TRIAL SCHEDULE FOR
`THE APPLE IPR PROCEEDING ........................................................................ 5
`PROCEDURES TO SIMPLIFY BRIEFING AND DISCOVERY ................................. 5
`E.
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (PTAB
`July 29, 2013) ......................................................................................................... 3
`Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs & Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19
`at 5 (PTAB July 9, 2014) ....................................................................................... 4
`Everlight Elecs. Co. v. Document Security Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01260, Paper 12
`(PTAB Nov. 14, 2018) ........................................................................................... 4
`HTC v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC., IPR2017-00512, Paper 12
`(PTAB June 1, 2017) ............................................................................................. 1
`LG v. Memory Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2015) ..... 5
`Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper 38 (PTAB Apr. 10,
`2015)....................................................................................................................... 6
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2016-01023, Paper 20 (PTAB Oct. 27, 2016)
` ................................................................................................................................ 4
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Demaray LLC, IPR2021-01090, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov.
`22, 2021) ................................................................................................................ 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug.
`24, 2016) ................................................................................................................ 3
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................1, 3
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,918,196
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. 9,918,196
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Braasch, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael Braasch, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,505,048 (“Moles”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,539,080 (“Bruce”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,716,101 (“Meadows”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,680,694 (“Knockeart”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,591,242 (“Karp”)
`
`WO 01/28270 to Sakarya
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 (“Hancock”)
`
`Federal Communications Commission Record, FCC 96-264 (Jun. 12,
`1996)
`Complaint, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-
`cv-00074
`Agreed Scheduling Order, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`WDTX-6-21-cv-00074 (filed July 14, 2021; order not yet entered)
`Opposed Motion to Stay Case Pending the Final Disposition of
`Related Proceedings Before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074
`(filed July 15, 2021)
`Plaintiff’s Corrected Asserted Claims, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v.
`Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074 (served August 15, 2021)
`Opposed Motion to Amend Complaint, Traxcell Technologies, LLC
`v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074 (filed August 6, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Order to dismiss complaint without prejudice, Traxcell Technologies,
`LLC v. Apple, Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00074 (entered December 16,
`2021)
`Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims of
`Infringement, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Verizon Wireless
`Personal Communications, LP, WDTX-6:20-cv-01175 (filed
`October 21, 2021)
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Declaration of Peter Rysavy in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Peter Rysavy
`
`Docket Control Order, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia
`Solutions and Networks US LLC, et al., 2-18-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex.
`February 1, 2022)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Comparison between Apple’s Petition for Inter Partes Review in
`IPR2021-01552 and T-Mobile’s Petition
`
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement,
`Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks US
`LLC, et al., 2-18-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex. February 21, 2022)
`
`Order Granting Plaintiff’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims
`of Infringement, Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and
`Networks US LLC, et al., 2-18-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex. February 23,
`2022)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile” or “Petitioner”) respectfully submits this
`
`Motion for Joinder, concurrently with a Petition (the “T-Mobile petition”) for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,196 (the “’196 patent”), filed herewith.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), T-Mobile
`
`requests institution of an inter partes review and joinder with Apple Inc. v. Traxcell
`
`Technologies LLC, IPR2021-01552 (the “Apple IPR Proceeding”), which the
`
`Board instituted on February 7, 2022 concerning the same claims of the ’196
`
`patent at issue in the T-Mobile petition. This request is being submitted within the
`
`time set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), as it is submitted within one month of the
`
`institution date in the Apple IPR Proceeding.
`
`T-Mobile 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.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.1(b); see also HTC v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC., IPR2017-
`
`00512, Paper 12 at 5-6 (PTAB June 1, 2017). The T-Mobile petition and the
`
`petition in the Apple IPR Proceeding are substantively identical; they contain the
`
`same grounds (based on the same prior art combinations) against the same claims.
`
`Further, upon joining the Apple IPR Proceeding, T-Mobile will act as an
`
`“understudy” and will not assume an active role unless Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`ceases to participate in the Apple IPR Proceeding. Accordingly, the proposed
`
`joinder will neither unduly complicate the Apple IPR Proceeding nor delay its
`
`schedule. As such, joinder will promote judicial efficiency in determining the
`
`patentability of the ’196 patent without prejudice to the Board, Apple, or Patent
`
`Owner. Moreover, T-Mobile has spoken with Apple’s counsel of record in
`
`IPR2021-01552, and Apple does not oppose joinder.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`The ’196 patent is at issue in an infringement action against T-Mobile in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and
`
`Networks US LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex.) (“the Litigation”). On
`
`September 21, 2021, Apple filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’196
`
`patent, requesting cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’196 patent. On February 7,
`
`2022, the Board instituted review in the Apple IPR Proceeding as to all claims and
`
`all grounds. Apple Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLC, IPR2021-01552, Paper 9 at
`
`31 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2022). The T-Mobile petition and Apple’s petition in the Apple
`
`IPR Proceeding are substantively identical. They contain the same grounds, based
`
`on the same prior art, for the same claims. See Ex.1034 at 33-102 (comparing the
`
`prior art combinations and arguments from the Apple petition with the prior art
`
`combination and arguments in the T-Mobile petition).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`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. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). In determining whether to join one IPR proceeding to another,
`
`the Board considers: (1) reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) any new grounds
`
`of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) what impact (if any) joinder would
`
`have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) specifically how briefing
`
`and discovery may be simplified. See Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 3 (PTAB July 29, 2013). Each of these factors
`
`favors joinder here.
`
`B.
`Joinder with the Apple IPR Proceeding Is Appropriate
`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 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Joinder is
`
`appropriate here because it is the most efficient way to resolve the two related
`
`proceedings. The T-Mobile petition is substantially similar in substance to the
`
`instituted Apple IPR Proceeding (see comparison at Ex.1034)1 and does “not
`
`
`1 The T-Mobile Petition is supported by a declaration from Peter Rysavy
`(Ex.1031), who considered the declaration provided by Apple’s expert and the
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`present new issues that might complicate or delay” the Apple IPR Proceeding.
`
`Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs & Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19
`
`(PTAB July 9, 2014). Joinder would therefore have little, if any, impact on the
`
`Apple IPR Proceeding because no new grounds would be added, the schedule
`
`would not be affected, no additional briefing or discovery would be required, and
`
`no additional burdens would be placed on Patent Owner, as detailed below.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate because, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), it
`
`ensures a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these proceedings.
`
`C.
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of Unpatentability
`As discussed above, the T-Mobile petition is substantively identical to the
`
`petition in the Apple IPR Proceeding (i.e., challenging the same claims of the same
`
`patent on the same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the Apple
`
`IPR Proceeding) (see comparison at Ex.1034). See Par Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis
`
`AG, IPR2016-01023, Paper 20 at 14 (PTAB 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], rely on the same
`
`
`opinions set forth therein. Ex.1031, ¶19. Mr. Rysavy agrees with those opinions
`and adopts them as his own. Ex.1031, ¶19. Therefore, the declaration of Peter
`Rysavy does not expand on the scope of expert opinions provided in the Apple IPR
`Proceeding. See Everlight Elecs. Co. v. Document Security Sys., Inc., IPR2018-
`01260, Paper 12 at 6-7 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018) (granting motion for joinder where
`petitioner submitted separate but substantially identical expert declaration).
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`arguments and evidence, and do not require any modification to the existing
`
`schedule”).
`
`D.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Trial Schedule for the
`Apple IPR Proceeding
`Joinder will have minimal impact, if any, on the trial schedule in the Apple
`
`IPR Proceeding because the T-Mobile petition presents no new issues or grounds
`
`of unpatentability. Further, T-Mobile consents to the existing trial schedule in the
`
`Apple IPR Proceeding. There are no new issues for the Board to address, and
`
`Patent Owner will not be required to present any additional responses or
`
`arguments. The Patent Owner’s Response will not be negatively impacted because
`
`the issues presented in the T-Mobile petition are identical to the issues presented in
`
`the Apple IPR Proceeding. 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 Proceeding. See LG v. Memory Integrity, LLC.,
`
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2015) (granting motion for joinder
`
`where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from
`
`Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR]”).
`
`E.
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`T-Mobile agrees to take an “understudy” role, so long as Apple remains a
`
`party to the Apple IPR Proceeding, which will simplify briefing and discovery.
`
`See, e.g., Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper 38 at 5
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`(PTAB Apr. 10, 2015); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Demaray LLC, IPR2021-
`
`01090, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Nov. 22, 2021). In this understudy role, T-Mobile
`
`agrees to the following:
`
`a) T-Mobile will not make any substantive filings and shall be bound by
`
`the filings of Apple, unless a filing concerns termination and
`
`settlement, or issues solely involving T-Mobile.
`
`b) T-Mobile will not present any argument or make any presentation at
`
`the oral hearing unless an issue solely involves T-Mobile, or when
`
`addressing Board-approved motions that do not affect Apple.
`
`c) T-Mobile will not seek to cross-examine or defend the cross-
`
`examination of any witness, unless the topic of cross-examination
`
`concerns issues solely involving T-Mobile, within the time permitted
`
`by Apple alone and with Apple’s agreement.
`
`d) T-Mobile will not seek discovery from Patent Owner, unless issues
`
`arise that are unique to, and only applicable to, T-Mobile.
`
`e) T-Mobile will not rely on expert testimony beyond that submitted by
`
`Apple unless and until Apple is terminated as a party to the
`
`proceedings, prior to any necessary depositions. Petitioner’s expert
`
`declaration of Peter Rysavy is substantially identical to the declaration
`
`submitted in the Apple IPR Proceeding. Ex.1031, ¶19. Mr. Rysavy
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`will not actively participate in these proceedings, unless and until
`
`Apple is terminated as a party.
`
`Thus, by T-Mobile accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and Apple 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. T-Mobile is further willing to agree
`
`to any other reasonable conditions the Board deems necessary.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the factors discussed above, T-Mobile respectfully requests that
`
`the Board institute the T-Mobile petition and grant joinder with the Apple IPR
`
`Proceeding.
`
`
`Dated:
`
`March 4, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`
`/s/Tyler T. VanHoutan
`Tyler T. VanHoutan (Reg. No. 54,506)
`tvanhoutan@mcguirewoods.com
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`845 Texas Ave., Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002 -2904
`(713) 571-9191
`(713) 571-9652 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105, service was made on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Manner of service: USPS & Federal Express
`
`Documents served: Motion for Joinder to IPR2021-01552
`
`Persons served: MITCH HARRIS, LLC – GENERAL, P.O. BOX 1269,
`ATHENS GA 30603-1269
`
`RAMEY & SCHWALLER 5020, MONTROSE BLVD., Suite 800,
`HOUSTON, TEXAS 77006
`
`
`/s/Tyler T. VanHoutan
`Tyler VanHoutan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`