`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: (Unassigned)
`
`Patent No. 8,596,550
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2022-00983
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................ 3
`I.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .......................................................... 4
`II.
`III. REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ......................................................... 5
`A.
`Legal Standard ........................................................................................ 5
`B.
`The Motion for Joinder is Timely ........................................................... 6
`C.
`The Factors Weighs in Favor of Granting the Motion for Joinder ......... 6
`1.
`Joinder with the ecobee IPR Is Appropriate ........................................... 6
`2.
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds ........................................... 7
`3.
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the ecobee IPR Trial Schedule 8
`4.
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery ..................................... 9
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 10
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Google LLC respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder, with a Petition
`
`(“the Petition”) for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550 (“the ‘550
`
`patent”), filed concurrently herewith.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), Petitioner
`
`requests institution of an inter partes review and joinder with ecobee Technologies
`
`ULC f/k/a ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2022-00983 (“the
`
`ecobee IPR”), which the Board instituted on November 15, 2022, concerning the
`
`same claims (1-16) of the ‘550 patent at issue in the current Petition. This request
`
`is being submitted within the one-month time limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b).
`
`Petitioner submits that the request for joinder is consistent with the policy
`
`objectives 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 present Petition and the
`
`ecobee IPR Petition are substantially identical with respect to the asserted grounds,
`
`are based on the same prior art combinations and supporting evidence, and asserted
`
`against the same claims. Further, upon joining the ecobee IPR, Petitioner will act
`
`as an “understudy” and will not assume an active role unless the current petitioner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`ceases to actively prosecute the instituted IPR. Accordingly, the proposed joinder
`
`will not unduly complicate the ecobee IPR nor adversely impact its schedule. As
`
`such, the requested joinder will promote judicial efficiency in determining the
`
`Patentability of the ‘550 patent without prejudice to Patent Owner. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner has spoken with ecobee’s counsel of record in IPR2022-00983, and
`
`ecobee does not oppose this requested joinder.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`The ‘550 patent has been asserted in the following cases: (i)
`
`Emerson Electric Co. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00317 (D. Del.
`
`Mar. 1, 2021); (ii) Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor,
`
`Inc., 3-21-cv-01468 (N.D. Cal. March 1, 2021); (iii) ecobee, Inc. v.
`
`EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00323 (D. Del. March 2, 2021); (iv)
`
`Carrier Global Corp. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 1-21-cv-00328 (D. Del.
`
`March 3, 2021); (v) EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 6-22-cv-
`
`00350 (W.D. Tex. April 1, 2022); and (vi) Certain Smart
`
`Thermostat Systems, Smart HVAC Systems, Smart HVAC Control
`
`Systems, And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1258
`
`(“Certain Smart Thermostat Systems").
`
`2.
`
`Cases (i), (iv), and (v) have been voluntarily terminated. Case
`
`(vi) terminated on July 19, 2022 with a finding of no violation of
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`section 337 by any of the Respondents with respect to any
`
`asserted claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`3.
`
`ecobee filed a Petition for inter partes review of claim 1-16 of the
`
`‘550 patent on May 5, 2022. The Board instituted review of the
`
`‘550 patent as to claims 1-16 and all grounds on November 15,
`
`2022 in IPR2022-00983.
`
`4.
`
`The present Petition asserts the same ground of unpatentability
`
`against the same claims, and relies on the same expert declaration
`
`and evidence as asserted and relied upon on in the ecobee IPR.
`
`III. REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`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). A petitioner may
`
`request joinder up to one month after the institution date of the proceeding to
`
`which joinder is requested, without prior authorization. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The
`
`Board, in determining whether to exercise its discretion to grant joinder, considers
`
`whether the joinder motion: (1) sets forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate;
`
`(2) identifies any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3)
`
`explains what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the
`
`existing review; and (4) addresses specifically how briefing and discovery may be
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`simplified. Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc. d/b/a Alert360 v. Ubiquitous
`
`Connectivity, LP, IPR2019-01610, Paper No. 12, p. 6.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), joinder can be requested without prior
`
`authorization no later than one month after the institution date of the proceeding to
`
`which joinder is requested. This motion is being filed no later than one month
`
`from the November 15, 2022, institution date of IPR2022-00983. This motion is
`
`timely.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Factors Weighs in Favor of Granting the Motion for Joinder
`
`All four factors weigh in favor of granting the motion for Petitioner. The
`
`Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the ecobee IPR. Petitioner does
`
`not present any new grounds of unpatentability. Additionally, as all issues are
`
`substantively identical and Petitioner will act as an “understudy,” joinder will have
`
`no impact on the pending schedule of the ecobee IPR. See LG v. Memory
`
`Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11, p. 6 (granting motion for joinder
`
`where petitioner 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 ecobee IPR Is Appropriate
`1.
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in [an] existing
`
`proceeding.” Central Security, IPR2019-01610, Paper No. 12, p. 6 (internal
`
`citations omitted). Here, joinder with the ecobee IPR is appropriate because the
`
`present Petition introduces the same arguments and the same grounds raised in the
`
`existing ecobee IPR (i.e., 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 granted ecobee Petition). Although there are minor
`
`differences related to the mandatory notices and grounds for standing, there are no
`
`substantive changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments relied upon to
`
`assert unpatentability of the claims relative to the ecobee Petition. Exhibit 1023.
`
`Because these proceedings are substantively identical, good cause exists for
`
`joining this proceeding with the ecobee IPR so that the Board, consistent with 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can efficiently “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution” of the present Petition and ecobee’s Petition in a single proceeding, as
`
`compared with two separate proceedings.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds
`2.
`As noted above, the Petition challenges the same claims of the ‘550 patent,
`
`relying on the same expert declaration, and on the same grounds and
`
`combinations of prior art submitted in the ecobee Petition. See LG, IPR2015-
`
`01353, Paper No. 11 at 5-6 (granting institution of IPR and motion for joinder
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`where petitioner relied “on the same prior art, same arguments, and same
`
`evidence, including the same expert and a substantively identical declaration”);
`
`see also Central Security, IPR2019-01610, Paper No. 12, p. 8 (granting motion
`
`for joinder where the Petitions challenge the same claims on the same grounds
`
`using the same prior art).
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the ecobee IPR
`Trial Schedule
`Joinder should have no meaningful impact on the ecobee IPR trial schedule
`
`because the present Petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability.
`
`See LG, IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6 (granting IPR and motion for joinder
`
`where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from
`
`Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR]”). Further,
`
`Petitioner explicitly consents to the existing IPR2022-00983 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 upon joinder. It is noted that, in
`
`the ecobee IPR (IPR2022-00983), the Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, on August 17, 2022, and already presented certain
`
`arguments against the same grounds presented in the present Petition. Patent
`
`Owner is under no obligation to file a Preliminary Response in response to the
`
`Present Petition. Presumably, Patent Owner has also already been actively
`
`analyzing the same ground presented in the present Petition in connection with its
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`Patent Owner’s Response due in the ecobee IPR.
`
`Accordingly, joinder with the ecobee IPR does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule.
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`4.
`Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, which will simplify
`
`briefing and discovery. Specifically, Petitioner explicitly agrees, upon joining the
`
`ecobee IPR, that the following conditions shall apply so long as the current lead
`
`petitioner in IPR2022-00983 does not enter into a settlement of its dispute with
`
`Patent Owner and remains an active party:
`
`a) Petitioner shall not make any substantive filings and shall be
`
`bound by the filings of ecobee, unless a filing concerns
`
`termination and settlement;
`
`b) Petitioner shall not present any argument or make any presentation
`
`at oral hearing;
`
`c) Petitioner shall not seek to cross-examine or defend the
`
`cross- examination of any witness; and
`
`d) Petitioner shall not seek discovery from Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Central Security, IPR2019-01610, Paper No. 12, p. 8 (“Petitioner avers it
`
`will take an ‘understudy’ role in the [joined] IPR by consolidating all filings,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`refraining from advancing new arguments, binding itself to any discovery
`
`agreements, and limiting its deposition time to the time already allotted . . . Thus,
`
`joinder would result in the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the instant
`
`Petition as well as the petition filed in the [joined] IPR.”). Unless and until the
`
`current petitioner ceases to participate in the instituted IPR proceeding, Petitioner
`
`will not assume an active role therein.
`
`Thus, by Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and the
`
`current petitioner in the ecobee IPR can comply with the existing trial schedule
`
`without requiring any duplicative efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner. These
`
`steps will minimize any potential complications or delay that potentially may result
`
`by joinder. Petitioner is further amenable to any other reasonable conditions the
`
`Board deems necessary.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the factors discussed above, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board grant the Petition and grant this motion for joinder with the ecobee IPR.
`
`Date: December 15, 2022
`
`
`
`10
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/ (RN 49,003)
`Matthew A. Smith
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
`Second Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20003
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2022-00983
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2022-00983, was served by
`
`Priority Mail Express on December 15, 2022, on the Patent Owner’s counsel of
`
`record at the United States Patent & Trademark Office having the following
`
`address:
`
`Tanner IP, PLLC
`149 West Gilpin Avenue
`Norfolk, VA 23503
`UNITED STATES
`
`Courtesy copies of the above-mentioned documents were also provided to
`
`counsel of record for Patent Owner in IPR2022-00983 via email correspondence to
`
`the following recipients:
`
`pwang@raklaw.com
`
`jlink@raklaw.com
`
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`
`kdavis@raklaw.com
`
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`Date: December 15, 2022
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/
`Matthew A. Smith
`(Reg. No. 49,003)
`
`
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
