throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: September 21, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GENERAL MOTORS LLC, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`TESLA, INC., and AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`General Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 3, “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” or “VW IPR”). Paper 2 (“Motion” or
`“Mot.”). Neo Wireless LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Response to
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 7, “Opp.”) but did not file a
`Preliminary Response. Petitioner subsequently filed a Reply in Support of
`its Motion for Joinder. Paper 8 (“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 General Motors LLC; Nissan North America,
`Inc.; Tesla, Inc.; American Honda Motor Co., Inc.; General Motors Co.; LG
`Electronics, Inc.; Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation a/k/a Nissan Motor
`Acceptance Company LLC; Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd.; and Honda
`Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC as real parties in interest.
`Pet. 2–3.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Patent Owner only identifies 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. 3–4; Mot. 1. Patent Owner
`lists current district court proceedings involving the challenged patent and
`nine proceedings 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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Both parties also identify IPR2022-01539 (the Volkswagen IPR),
`IPR2023-00079, and IPR2023-00764. Pet. 4; Paper 5, 1. We instituted
`review in IPR2023-00079 (“Mercedes IPR”) and granted a motion for
`joinder filed by petitioner Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (“Mercedes-Benz”).
`Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Neo Wireless, LLC, IPR2023-00079, Paper 11
`(PTAB May 5, 2023) (Decision Granting Institution and Granting Motion
`for Joinder). The parties in the Mercedes IPR settled their dispute with
`respect to IPR2023-00079, IPR2022-01539, and the related district court
`litigation, and a Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to Mercedes-Benz
`was granted. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01539, Paper 21 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2023); Mercedes-Benz USA LLC
`v. Neo Wireless, LLC, IPR2023-00079, Paper 15 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2023).
`We also instituted review in IPR2023-00764 (“Ford IPR”) and
`granted a motion for joinder filed by petitioner Ford Motor Co. Ford Motor
`Co. v. Neo Wireless, LLC, IPR2023-00764, Paper 15 (PTAB July 17, 2023)
`(Decision Granting Institution and Granting Motion for Joinder).
`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.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`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.
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`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:
`Name
`Reference
`Tong
`US 7,120,395 B2, issued Oct. 10, 2006
`Li
`US 2002/0163879 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002
`Smee
`US 2004/0131007 A1, published July 8, 2004
`Ketchum US 2004/0179627 A1, published Sept. 16, 2004
`Kim
`WO 2004/049618 A1, published June 10, 2004
`
`Exhibit
`1005
`1007
`1017
`1006
`1004
`
`Pet. 6–7. 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 6. According to Petitioner, Kim, Tong, Ketchum, and Smee are 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 6–7.
`Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Matthew C. Valenti, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1035 (“Valenti Declaration”). Petitioner states that Dr. Valenti “adopt[s]
`the opinions set forth in EX1003, the declaration of Dr. Paul Min submitted
`in IPR2022-01539.” Pet. 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 18).
`
`
`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. 6 (stating but not conceding that “[t]he
`’512 patent’s earliest possible priority date is January 29, 2004”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`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, 30
`5, 12, 21, 29
`
`35
`U.S.C. § References/Basis
`103(a)
`Kim, Tong
`103(a)
`Ketchum, Li
`103(a)
`Ketchum, Li, Smee
`
`Pet. 7.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Joinder for purposes of an inter partes review is governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states:
`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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`A. Whether the Petition Warrants Institution
`Petitioner states that its “Petition is substantively the same as the VW
`IPR petition.” Mot. 1. Petitioner also states that its “supporting
`materials―including its supporting expert declaration, exhibits, and exhibit
`numbering―are substantially and substantively identical to those presented
`in the VW IPR” and its “expert’s declaration agrees with and adopts the
`facts, analysis, and conclusions of the expert declaration in the VW IPR and
`does not contain any new opinions not included in the VW IPR expert
`declaration.” Id. at 6.
`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,
`and other considerations. When exercising that discretion, we are mindful
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`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 on June 2, 2023, which is one month after May 2, 2023, when we
`instituted review in IPR2022-01539. See Paper 4 (according a filing date of
`June 2, 2023). The Motion is, thus, 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).
`1. Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner argues that granting its motion for joinder would promote
`efficiently determining the validity of the ’512 patent without prejudice to
`any party. Mot. 4–6. In particular, Petitioner seeks joinder so that “accused
`infringers with an active interest in the proceeding remains a party to this
`IPR if the VW IPR Petitioner’s participation is terminated prior to
`completion” and so that validity “can be determined in a single proceeding.”
`Id. at 4. Petitioner also contends joinder is appropriate because the
`challenges are identical and not substantively different to those in the VW
`IPR, and the challenges “rely on substantially the same supporting evidence”
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`as the VW IPR. Id. at 4–5. Petitioner, thus, contends that a single
`proceeding would be “more efficient and less wasteful,” “promote the public
`interest relating to the unpatentability of the ’512 patent,” and “not cause any
`undue prejudice to Patent Owner or the VW IPR Petitioner.” Id. at 5–6.
`Petitioner also argues that granting its motion for joinder would not
`add additional complexity to the grounds in the VW IPR because its
`“supporting materials―including its supporting expert declaration, exhibits,
`and exhibit numbering―are substantially and substantively identical to
`those presented in the VW IPR” and “the expert’s declaration agrees with
`and adopts the facts, analysis, and conclusions of the expert declaration in
`the VW IPR and does not contain any new opinions not included in the VW
`IPR expert declaration.” Mot. 6. Joinder, Petitioner contends, would “not
`raise any new issues of unpatentability,” would “not impose any additional
`burden on the Board or Patent Owner,” and, thus, would not “add additional
`complexity to the case.” Id. at 7.
`Petitioner further argues that joinder would not affect the schedule in
`the VW IPR because there should be “no changes to the schedule” and
`“Petitioner[] agree[s] to adhere to all applicable deadlines set forth in the
`VW IPR Scheduling Order.” Mot. 7. According to Petitioner, Patent
`Owner’s Response in the VW IPR would not be affected because the issues
`are the same and, thus, Patent Owner would not need to provide any
`additional analysis or argument. Id.
`Petitioner additionally argues that joinder would simplify briefing
`because it agrees to consolidated filings and to an understudy role if
`Volkswagen remains. Mot. 7–9. Specifically, to prevent joinder from
`imposing any burden on Volkswagen, Patent Owner, or the Board, Petitioner
`agrees “as long as the VW IPR Petitioner remains a party to the VW IPR, to
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`take an understudy role, which will simplify briefing and discovery.” Id. at
`7–8. In the understudy role, Petitioner (1) would “not make any substantive
`filing and shall be bound by the filings of the VW IPR Petitioner, unless a
`filing concerns termination and settlement, or issues solely involving
`Petitioner[],” (2) would “not present any argument or make any presentation
`at oral hearing unless an issue solely involves Petitioner[], or when
`addressing Board-approved motions that do not affect the VW IPR
`Petitioner, or its respective position,” (3) would “not seek to cross-examine
`or defend the cross-examination of any witness, unless the topic of cross-
`examination concerns issues solely involving Petitioner[],” (4) would “not
`seek discovery from Patent Owner on issues not solely involving
`Petitioner[],” (5) would “not rely on expert testimony beyond that submitted
`by the VW IPR Petitioner unless the VW IPR Petitioner is terminated from
`the case prior to any necessary depositions,” and (6) would “agree to rely
`entirely on, and be bound by, the expert declarations and depositions in the
`VW IPR,” if Volkswagen is not terminated before depositions. Id. at 8–9.
`Because Petitioner would be in an understudy role, it contends that
`“Patent Owner and the VW IPR Petitioner will only need to respond to one
`principal set of papers, will not require additional time to address additional
`arguments, and can thus proceed with the existing trial schedule,” thereby
`minimizing any complications or delays that joinder could potentially cause.
`Mot. 9. Petitioner also states that it would “abide by any additional
`conditions the Board deems appropriate for an ‘understudy’ role.” Id.
`Petitioner finally argues that joinder would not result in prejudice to
`Patent Owner because “[n]o additional grounds or arguments are being
`introduced, no new evidence or issues are being added, and no additional
`discovery or briefing or oral argument should be necessary.” Mot. 9–10.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`According to Petitioner, “Patent Owner would not need to expend any
`additional resources beyond those required in the current VW IPR.” Id. at
`10.
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`Patent Owner responds that joinder “should only be granted with
`additional conditions limiting [Petitioner]’s participation as joined
`understudy petitioner.” Opp. 1. Patent Owner notes that it “respectfully
`disagrees with the decision to grant joinder without formally imposing such
`conditions in IPR2023-00079” and that “multiplying grants of joinder
`increase the likelihood of resulting cost and delay.” Id. at n.1. Patent Owner
`also notes that Petitioner “concedes that measures limiting its joined
`participation are appropriate, and pre-emptively ‘agrees’ to several such
`limits.” Id. at 2 (citing Mot. 2, 7–9).
`Patent Owner, however, contends that Petitioner does not make clear
`what its “understudy” role entails. Opp. 2 (citing Mot. 1–2). In Patent
`Owner’s view, the Board should make explicit that the “understudy” role
`means that Petitioner will not make any substantive filing, will not make any
`oral hearing presentation, will not seek cross-examination testimony, and
`will not seek other discovery. Id. at 2–3. “Unless the promised ‘understudy
`role’ is expressly clarified as discussed below, Patent Owner respectfully
`opposes granting the subject joinder request.” Id. at 3.
`Patent Owner argues that joinder should only be granted with the
`further conditions that (1) Petitioner “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,” (2) its “exhibits, including its
`separate expert declaration (Ex. 1035), not be added to the record of this
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`case,” and (3) it “have no right as understudy petitioner to submit any
`separate exhibits or other materials.” Opp. 3. Patent Owner also argues that
`joinder should only be granted if Petitioner “is given no right thereby to
`participate, as a joined party, without express prior Board authorization.” Id.
`at 4.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner “has not promised not to submit
`its own separate evidence,” “giv[en] itself multiple potential carve-outs
`wherein it might potentially deem itself permitted to submit evidence or
`briefing” if an issue involves only Petitioner or does not affect Volkswagen,
`and has already submitted its own evidence, including its own declaration.
`Opp. 4 (citing Mot. 8); see also id. at 10 (arguing Petitioner “does not agree
`to not file separate exhibits nor does it explicitly agree not to file briefing,
`simply stating that ‘[t]hese limitations will avoid . . . duplicative briefing’ . .
`. , while at the same time giving itself multiple carve-outs wherein it can file
`briefing or advance arguments” and that the Valenti Declaration has already
`been filed separately) (citing Mot. 2, 7–9). Patent Owner also contends that
`Petitioner’s stated conditions for limiting its participation “present potential
`loopholes.” Id. at 4–6 (citing Mot. 7–9).
`According to Patent Owner, the conditions “should be augmented”
`because they do not extend to issues involving only Petitioner, or some other
`“carve-out,” that would allow potential direct involvement. Opp. 6 (citing
`Mot. 8). Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner does not clarify what “a
`‘necessary’ deposition would be.” Id. (citing Mot. 8–9). Patent Owner
`further provides its understanding of past Board proceedings where
`additional restrictions were imposed on joined petitioners and argues for
`similar additional conditions in this proceeding. Id. at 6–9.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “does not even agree to proceed
`solely on the grounds, evidence, and arguments advanced in the Volkswagen
`IPR if it is instituted, instead attempting to carve out multiple situations” that
`would allow presenting arguments, filing briefs, seeking discovery, and
`cross-examining witnesses. Opp. 11 (citing Mot. 7–9). Patent Owner also
`argues that Petitioner “has not limited itself, or Volkswagen, from presenting
`different arguments” based on its separately filed Valenti Declaration and
`has not stated that Volkswagen would not rely on or take deposition of Dr.
`Valenti. Id. (citing Mot. 9). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner
`could submit its own separate evidence, if it unilaterally determines that it is
`appropriate. Id. at 11–12 (citing Mot. 8).
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s exhibits should not become
`exhibits in the Volkswagen IPR. Opp. 10. Patent Owner contends that
`allowing Petitioner to present its own separate, different evidence would
`hinder a “just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of the joined proceeding.
`Id. at 11. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s separate exhibits should
`be withdrawn and not become part of the joined proceeding. Id.
`Patent Owner describes other Board proceedings where joinder was
`granted “only on the simple, efficient condition that the joined petitioner use
`the witness declaration of the existing party, and indeed that, if it has filed a
`declaration, that the declaration be withdrawn.” Opp. 12. Patent Owner
`contends that joinder should only be granted in this proceeding with this
`additional condition. Id.
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s other exhibits appear to be
`identical to ones filed in IPR2022-01539. Opp. 12 (citing Exs. 1001–1032).
`Patent Owner argues that the filing of duplicative exhibits requires Board
`authorization. Id. at 12–13 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d)).
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`3. Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner replies that its Petition is substantively the same as the
`Volkswagen IPR and challenges the same claims on the same grounds using
`the same prior art. Mot. Reply 1. Petitioner reaffirms that, “if joinder is
`granted, it will act as an ‘understudy’ and will not assume an active role
`unless the Volkswagen IPR Petitioner ceases to participate in the
`proceeding.” Id. Petitioner “agree[s] to abide by numerous conditions for
`the ‘understudy’ role.” Id. (citing Mot. 7–9).
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s additional conditions are
`“unnecessary because Petitioner’s stipulated conditions are consistent with
`the Board’s practice” and the additional conditions would be “contrary to the
`Board’s practice.” Mot. Reply 2 (citing Opp. 2–3, 11). Petitioner also
`argues that its agreed-to conditions “already limit Petitioner’s participation
`in a manner consistent with the Board’s practice by limiting additional
`discovery, briefing, and oral argument.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Mot. 7–9).
`According to Petitioner, “[t]he Board routinely grants motions for joinder
`where petitioner agrees to participate as Petitioner proposes here.” Id. at 3.
`Regarding Patent Owner’s additional condition that the Valenti
`Declaration be withdrawn, Petitioner replies that “the Board routinely grants
`joinder without requiring the joined petitioner to withdraw its exhibits when
`substantially the same evidence was filed as in the existing proceeding” and
`“the Board routinely permits a joining party to submit separate filings in a
`limited ‘understudy’ role.” Mot. Reply 3–4. Petitioner also contrasts the
`facts of the Board proceedings cited by Patent Owner and this proceeding.
`Id. at 4–5. In Petitioner’s view, its “supporting materials―including its
`supporting expert declaration, exhibits, and exhibit numbering―are
`substantially identical to those presented in the Volkswagen IPR;” its
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`declaration “does not contain any new opinions not included in the
`Volkswagen IPR expert declaration;” and “unity of exhibits and exhibit
`numbering with the Volkswagen IPR has been maintained.” Id. at 5.
`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. 1–2, 7–9;
`Mot. Reply 1; see also Opp. 2 (noting that Petitioner “has said it ‘will act as
`an “understudy”’ unless the target IPR petitioner is no longer a party in the
`proceeding”).
`At this stage, Patent Owner’s additional conditions are not necessary.
`See Opp. 3–4, 9–10. 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
`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.
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`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 2)
`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;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s role in IPR2022-01539 shall
`be limited as stated by Petitioner in the Motion for Joinder (Paper 2) 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 General Motors LLC, Nissan North
`America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., as
`petitioners in accordance with the attached example;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`the record of IPR2022-01539; and
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings shall be made in
`IPR2022-01539.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00961
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`For PETITIONER:
`Timothy Riffe
`Usman Khan
`John Johnson
`Jeffrey Mok
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`riffe@fr.com
`khan@fr.com
`jjohnson@fr.com
`jmok@fr.com
`
`Reginald Hill
`Nicole Keenan
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`rhill@jenner.com
`nkeenan@jenner.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax
`Parham Hendifar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteiweatherwax.com
`
`Hamad M. Hamad
`CALDWELL, CASSADY, & CURRY PC
`hhamad@caldwell.com
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., TESLA, INC., and
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., 1
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Ford Motor Company filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-
`00764, and General Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc.,
`and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., filed their own motion for joinder and
`petition in IPR2023-00961. Both motions were granted, and, therefore, Ford
`Motor Company, General Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla,
`Inc., and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., have been joined as petitioners
`in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket