Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: May 5, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: May 5, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner” or “Mercedes”) filed a
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of
`claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’512 patent”).
`Concurrently, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder seeking to be joined as a
`party to Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01539 (“Volkswagen IPR”). Paper 3 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Neo
`Wireless LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”) and a Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 7
`(“Opp.”)). Petitioner subsequently filed a Reply in Support of its Motion for
`Joinder. Paper 9 (“Mot. Reply”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the
`reasons that follow, we determine that institution of inter partes review is
`warranted on the same grounds instituted in the Volkswagen IPR and grant
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Mercedes-Benz
`Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG; and Mercedes-Benz AG as real
`parties in interest. Pet. 2. Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real party
`in interest. Paper 5, 1.
`C. Related Matters
`Petitioner lists several civil actions in which Neo Wireless, LLC is the
`plaintiff and the ’512 patent is involved. Pet. 2–4. Patent Owner lists ten
`current proceedings involving the challenged patent and nine proceedings
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`that, according to Patent Owner, have been terminated. Paper 5, 1–3. The
`current proceedings include:
`In Re: Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation, No. 2:22-md-03034 (E.D.
`Mich.);
`Neo Wireless LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`11403 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-11402 (E.D.
`Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Tesla Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11408 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. General Motors Co., No. 2:22-cv-11407 (E.D.
`Mich.);
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`11406 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 2:22-
`cv-11404 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11405
`(E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-11769
`(E.D. Mich.); and
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:22-cv-11770 (E.D. Mich.).
`Id. at 1–2.
`Both parties also identify IPR2022-01539. Pet. 4; Paper 5, 2. We
`additionally note that Ford Motor Company has filed a petition substantially
`identical to the instant Petition, along with a motion for joinder as a
`petitioner in IPR2022-01539. IPR2023-00764, Papers 1, 3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`D. The ’512 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’512 patent issued on March 30, 2021, from an application filed
`on September 4, 2020, which is a continuation of several previously filed
`applications, the earliest of which was filed on January 20, 2005. Ex. 1001,
`codes (22), (45), (63), 1:10–29. The ’512 patent also claims priority to a
`provisional application filed on January 29, 2004. Id. at code (60), 1:29–31.
`The ’512 patent provides “methods to define the transmission formats
`of the cell-specific and common pilot subcarriers that enable a receiver to
`perform different system functions.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–40. According to the
`’512 patent, “signal reception can be improved by manipulating phase values
`of the pilot subcarriers and by using power control.” Id. at 3:43–45.
`The ’512 patent describes that, for “multi-carrier wireless
`communications,” such as “orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`(OFDMA),” “network information provided by a portion of total subcarriers
`such as pilot subcarriers” facilitates “important system functions such as
`frequency synchronization and channel estimation.” Ex. 1001, 1:36–38,
`3:55–57. The “pilot subcarriers are divided into two different groups
`according to their functionalities.” Id. at 3:10–12. “The first group is called
`‘cell-specific pilot subcarriers,’ and will be used by the receiver 104 to
`extract information unique to each individual cell.” Id. at 3:17–19. “The
`second group is termed ‘common pilot sub-carriers,’ and are designed to
`possess a set of characteristics common to all base stations of the system.”
`Id. at 3:25–27.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’512 patent includes claims 1–30, all of which Petitioner
`challenges. Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 8, 15, and 23 are
`independent. Reproduced below is claim 1.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`1.
`An orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`(OFDMA)-compatible base station that uses subcarriers in a
`frequency domain and time slots in a time domain, the OFDMA-
`compatible base station comprising:
`a plurality of antennas; and
`a transmitter operably coupled to the plurality of antennas;
`the transmitter configured to:
`insert first pilots of a first type onto a first plurality of
`subcarriers, wherein the first pilots are cell-specific pilots; and
`insert data and second pilots of a second type onto a
`second plurality of subcarriers;
`wherein at least some subcarriers of the first plurality of
`subcarriers or the second plurality of subcarriers are beam-
`formed; and
`the plurality of antennas configured to transmit the first
`plurality of subcarriers and the second plurality of subcarriers in
`at least one of the time slots;
`wherein the second type is different than the first type and
`wherein the first pilots do not interfere with the second pilots.
`Ex. 1001, 9:46–67.
`F. Asserted Prior Art and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in the
`asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`Exhibit
`Name
`Reference
`1005
`Tong
`US 7,120,395 B2, issued Oct. 10, 2006
`1007
`Li
`US 2002/0163879 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002
`1017
`Smee
`US 2004/0131007 A1, published July 8, 2004
`1006
`Ketchum US 2004/0179627 A1, published Sept. 16, 2004
`1004
`Kim
`WO 2004/049618 A1, published June 10, 2004
`Pet. 5–6. Petitioner states that “all references relied upon herein are prior art
`as of January 29, 2004,” “[t]he ‘512 patent’s earliest possible priority date.”
`Id. at 5–6. According to Petitioner, Kim, Tong, Ketchum, and Smee are
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`prior art under, at least, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and Li is prior art
`under, at least, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 1 Id. at 6.
`Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Mr. Bruce McNair.
`Ex. 1038. Petitioner states that it cites to the Declaration which “adopt[s]
`the opinions set forth in EX1003, the declaration of Dr. Paul Min submitted
`in IPR2022-01539,” and Petitioner “notes there are corresponding, identical
`opinions in Dr. Min’s declaration.” Pet. 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 2). Patent
`Owner provides a Declaration of William P. Alberth Jr. Ex. 2001.
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–30 are unpatentable on the following
`grounds:
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1–30
`1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, 18, 20, 22,
`23, 25, 26, 28, 302
`5, 12, 21, 29
`Pet. 6.
`
`35
`U.S.C. § References/Basis
`103(a)
`Kim, Tong
`103(a)
`Ketchum, Li
`103(a)
`Ketchum, Li, Smee
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Joinder for purposes of an inter partes review is governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states:
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’512 patent claims priority to an application filed before
`that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision are to
`their pre-AIA versions. See also Pet. 5–6 (stating but not conceding that
`“[t]he ’512 patent’s earliest possible priority date is January 29, 2004”).
`2 Petitioner omits claim 30 for the second ground in its “Statutory Grounds
`for the Challenge” but provides arguments for claim 30. Pet. 6, 78.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under
`section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`parties review under section 314.
`“To join a party to an instituted [inter partes review (IPR)], the plain
`language of § 315(c) requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v.
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “First,
`the statute requires that the Director (or the Board acting through a
`delegation of authority) . . . determine whether the joinder applicant’s
`petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. “Second, to effect
`joinder, § 315(c) requires the Director to exercise his discretion to decide
`whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id.
`A. Whether the Petition Warrants Institution
`Petitioner states that its “Petition is substantively the same as the
`Volkswagen IPR petition,” that “[t]here are no substantive differences
`between the Petition and the Volkswagen IPR petition,” and that “Petitioner
`has copied the substance of the Volkswagen IPR petition and its
`accompanying expert declaration.” Mot. 2, 5, 6.
`Petitioner also states that “[w]hile Petitioner uses its own expert
`declarant, the expert’s declaration agrees with the facts, analysis, and
`conclusions of the expert declaration in the Volkswagen IPR and does not
`contain any new opinions not included in the Volkswagen IPR expert
`declaration.” Mot. 6. Petitioner further states that its “expert Mr. McNair
`would not be relied on if the Volkswagen IPR petitioner’s expert remains
`available.” Id. at 8.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Patent Owner notes that the Petition “is of the sort that has been called
`a ‘copycat’ petition, for it is nearly identical to the Petition filed in IPR2022-
`01539.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Patent Owner responds that “much as the Petition
`in this case repeats the same grounds as those set forth in [IPR2022-01539],
`the present preliminary response repeats the same reasons and same
`supporting evidence set forth in Patent Owner’s preliminary response in that
`case.” Id. at 3; see also id. at 9–24 (arguing, for the first ground, that
`Petitioner fails to show “cell-specific pilots” and “beam-formed”), 24–46
`(arguing, for the second ground, that Petitioner fails to show “cell-specific
`pilots” and “in at least one of the time slots”).
`We instituted an inter partes review in the Volkswagen IPR. See
`IPR2022-01539, Paper 7 (“1539 Dec. on Inst.”). We incorporate our
`previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability, and
`conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’512 patent challenged in
`the Petition for the same reasons. See 1539 Dec. on Inst. 9–55. Therefore,
`we determine that the Petition warrants institution of inter partes review on
`all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a)
`(“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to
`proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability
`asserted for each claim.”); see also SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`1359–60 (2018).
`B. Whether to Join Petitioner as a Party to the Volkswagen IPR
`Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant
`joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. We
`determine whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into
`account the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`and other considerations. When exercising that discretion, we are mindful
`that patent trial regulations, including the rules for joinder, must be
`construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`Any motion for joinder must be filed “no later than one month after
`the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is
`requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner filed its Petition and Motion
`for Joinder before we decided whether to institute review in IPR2022-01539,
`and, thus, the Motion is timely.
`As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A
`motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing
`and discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); PTAB E2E
`Frequently Asked Question H5, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/
`ptab/ptab-e2e-frequently-asked-questions.
`1. Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner argues that joinder is appropriate because it “challenges the
`same claims, on the same grounds, and relies on the same prior art as the
`Volkswagen IPR petition.” Mot. 2; see also id. at 4–5 (arguing similarly).
`Petitioner also argues that “good cause exists for joinder, so that the Board,
`consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can efficiently ‘secure the just, speedy,
`and inexpensive resolution’ of this proceeding and the Volkswagen IPR.”
`Id. at 5. Petitioner further argues that “[t]his is Petitioner’s first challenge
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`against the ’512 patent at the PTAB, and there is no risk of prejudice or
`abuse.” Id.
`Petitioner states that it “does not seek to introduce grounds or claims
`not currently in the Volkswagen IPR and seeks only to join the proceeding if
`and as instituted.” Mot. 6. Petitioner also contends that its Petition “does
`not seek to broaden the scope of the Volkswagen IPR” and “[t]here are no
`new issues for the Board to address. Id. at 6–7. According to Petitioner, “no
`additional burden would be created for the Board” and “[j]oinder would
`therefore lead to an efficient resolution.” Id. at 2–3.
`“Petitioner stipulates that if joinder is granted, it will act as an
`‘understudy,’” “will not assume an active role unless the Volkswagen IPR
`petitioner ceases to participate in the proceeding,” and “agrees to take an
`‘understudy’ role, which will simplify briefing and discovery.” Mot. 3, 7.
`Petitioner agrees, upon joining the Volkswagen IPR, that the
`following conditions . . . shall apply so long as the Volkswagen
`IPR petitioner remains an active party:
`a. all filings by Petitioner in the Volkswagen IPR shall be
`consolidated with the filings of the Volkswagen IPR petitioner,
`unless a filing concerns issues solely involving Petitioner;
`b. Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not
`instituted by the Board in the Volkswagen IPR, or introduce any
`argument or discovery not introduced by the Volkswagen IPR
`petitioner;
`c. Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent
`Owner and the Volkswagen IPR petitioner concerning discovery
`and depositions; and
`d. Petitioner at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross
`examination, or redirect time beyond that permitted under either
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between Patent Owner and
`the Volkswagen IPR petitioner.
`Id. at 7–8.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Petitioner also states that it “will not rely on expert testimony beyond
`that submitted by the Volkswagen IPR petitioner unless the Volkswagen IPR
`petitioner is terminated from the case prior to any necessary depositions,”
`and “Mr. McNair would not be relied on if the Volkswagen IPR petitioner’s
`expert remains available.” Mot. 8. Petitioner argues that “the proposed
`joinder will neither unduly complicate the Volkswagen IPR nor delay its
`schedule,” “will not unduly prejudice any party,” and “will not add any new
`substantive issues, delay the schedule, burden deponents, or increase
`needless filings.” Id. at 3.
`2. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`Patent Owner responds that, if review is instituted in IPR2022-01539,
`joinder should be granted “only with further limits” in addition to the ones
`quoted above from the Motion. Opp. 1–2 (citing Mot. 3, 7–8), 9–10. The
`further conditions are:
`(1)That Mercedes be denied any right to participate in the joined
`proceeding, including filing papers, engaging in discovery, or
`participate in depositions and oral argument, jointly or otherwise,
`without first obtaining authorization from the Board; In other
`words, Patent Owner requests that the Board strictly hold
`Mercedes to a silent understudy role;
`(2) That Mercedes’ exhibits, including its separate purported
`expert declaration (Ex. 1038), not be added to the record of this
`case, and that Mercedes have no right as understudy petitioner to
`submit any separate exhibits or other materials; and
`(3) If the Board rejects Patent Owner’s condition (1) immediately
`above, and grants Mercedes a right to jointly participate, that
`Volkswagen be shown to have accepted the role Mercedes has
`proposed that it will play.
`Id. at 2.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Patent Owner argues that without “clarity on what ‘understudy’
`means,” there would be “unacceptable risks of making the original case, if
`instituted, substantially more complicated, expensive, and unfair.” Opp. 2.
`Patent Owner would oppose granting joinder without the express
`clarifications provided in its further conditions. Id. at 3, 9–10.
`In Patent Owner’s view, Petitioner “has not promised not to submit its
`own separate evidence” and has done so already by submitting its own
`declaration. Opp. 3. Patent Owner argues “there is no apparent reason why
`[Petitioner] should be given any right to take any action in the proceedings
`without prior express Board permission.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that
`Petitioner “should be granted no right to file any exhibits in the joined case”
`and has “not agree[d] to not file separate exhibits,” such as its own
`declaration. Id. at 5–6 (citing Mot. 3; Ex. 1038). Patent Owner notes that
`Petitioner “has not limited itself, or Volkswagen, from presenting different
`arguments with respect to [Petitioner]’s separate witness.” Id. at 6. Patent
`Owner further argues that Petitioner’s exhibits “should not become part of
`the record of the joined proceedings.” Id.
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s promises of cooperation are
`unsubstantiated and insufficient, and Petitioner “does not aver that
`Volkswagen has agreed to abide by them.” Opp. 7–8 (quoting Mot. 7–8).
`Patent Owner describes “risks of disruption” if Volkswagen has not agreed.
`Id. at 8–9.
`3. Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner replies that, “[i]nstead of a substantive opposition,” Patent
`Owner argues for additional conditions that should not be imposed if joinder
`is granted. Mot. Reply 1. Petitioner argues that there would be no
`additional burden on Patent Owner, as described in the Motion. Id. at 1–2
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`(citing Mot. 6–8). Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s additional
`conditions “are essentially duplicative of the restrictions that Petitioner
`already proposes on its participation in the Volkswagen IPR and are thus
`unnecessary” because they “are adequate to eliminate the chance of
`duplicative briefing and any additional burden in the Volkswagen IPR.”
`Id. at 2.
`“Petitioner agrees to rely entirely on, and be bound by, the declaration
`and deposition of Dr. Paul Min in the Volkswagen IPR, assuming that the
`Volkswagen IPR petitioner does not terminate its IPR before Dr. Min is
`deposed.” Mot. Reply 3. Petitioner also states that it “is willing to meet and
`confer with the Board and all involved parties regarding the conduct of the
`joined proceeding, if necessary.” Id. at 4.
`4. Determining that Joinder is Appropriate
`Upon considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence presented,
`we are persuaded that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join
`Petitioner to the Volkswagen IPR. Petitioner challenges the same claims
`that are challenged in the Volkswagen IPR on the same grounds using the
`same prior art and evidence. Petitioner explicitly agrees that it will take an
`“understudy role” in the Volkswagen IPR, and has shown that the trial
`schedule will not be affected at all by joinder. See Mot. 7–8.
`At this stage, Patent Owner’s further conditions are not necessary.
`See Opp. 2. If Petitioner fails to abide by its own conditions, then Patent
`Owner should meet and confer with Petitioner and contact the Board, if the
`parties cannot come to an agreement.
`For the reasons discussed above, joinder to the Volkswagen IPR
`would result in the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of Petitioner’s
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`challenge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner as a party to the Volkswagen IPR.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 B2 is instituted with
`respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(b), inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 B2
`shall commence on the entry date of this Decision, and notice is hereby
`given of the institution of a trial;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 3)
`with IPR2022-01539 is granted, and Petitioner is hereby joined as petitioner
`in IPR2022-01539;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds on which trial in IPR2022-
`01539 were instituted are unchanged, and no other grounds are added in
`IPR2022-01539;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in
`IPR2022-01539 (Paper 8) shall govern the trial schedule in IPR2022-01539;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s role in IPR2022-01539 shall
`be limited as stated by Petitioner in the Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) unless
`and until Volkswagen is terminated from that proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2022-01539 shall
`be changed to reflect joinder of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC as petitioner in
`accordance with the attached example;
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`the record of IPR2022-01539; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings shall be made in
`IPR2022-01539.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Celine J. Crowson
`Joseph J. Raffeto
`Scott Hughes
`Helen Y. Trac
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
`joseph.raffeto@hoganlovells.com
`scott.hughes@hoganlovells.com
`helen.trac@hoganlovells.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`NeoWireless_IPRs@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`Hamad M. Hamad
`CALDWELL, CASSADY, & CURRY PC
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. and
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, 1
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC filed a motion for joinder and a petition in
`IPR2023-00079, which were granted, and, therefore, has been joined as
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
