`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARDS
`
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,
`INC., and MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS LLC
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NETLIST, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 11,016,918
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §315(c) AND 37 CFR § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS ................................... 2
`A.
`Related District Court Litigation ........................................................... 2
`B.
`Related IPR Proceedings ....................................................................... 2
`III. ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 3
`A. Micron’s Motion for Joinder Is Timely ................................................ 3
`Joinder Is Warranted under Kyocera ..................................................... 4
`1.
`Factor 1: Joinder is appropriate................................................... 4
`2.
`Factor 2: Micron’s petition proposes no new grounds for
`unpatentability ............................................................................. 5
`Factor 3: Joinder will not unduly burden or negatively impact
`the Samsung IPR trial schedule .................................................. 5
`Factor 4: Procedures to simplify briefing and discovery ............ 7
`4.
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC,
`IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 (PTAB May 30, 2019) ............................................. 6, 8
`AT&T Servs., Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC,
`IPR2017-01235, Paper 11 (PTAB May 9, 2017) ................................................. 8
`BlackBerry Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01283, Paper 10 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2019) ................................................. 5
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2018) ................................................ 7
`Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00376, Paper 16 (PTAB May 22, 2020) ............................................... 8
`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2018-01260, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018) ............................................... 7
`Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01352, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) .............................................. 6, 9
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) ............................................... 4
`Lear, Inc. v. Adkins,
`395 U.S. 653 (1969) .............................................................................................. 5
`Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH,
`IPR2019-00980, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2019) ............................................... 7
`Samsung Elecs., Co. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) ............................................... 3
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.
`IPR2022-00711, Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2022) ................................................ 2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) ............................................ 6, 9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ............................................................................................ 1, 3
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners Micron Technology, Inc.; Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.;
`
`and Micron Technology Texas LLC (collectively “Micron”), respectfully submit
`
`this Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) together with a Petition (“Micron Petition”) for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,016,918 (“’918 Patent”). The Board
`
`instituted inter partes review of claims 1-30 of the ’918 Patent in Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996 (“Samsung IPR”) on
`
`December 7, 2022. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b),
`
`Micron respectfully requests institution of inter partes review of the same claims
`
`of the ’918 Patent based on the same grounds presented in the Samsung IPR and
`
`further requests joinder with the Samsung IPR.
`
`Micron’s request for joinder is timely because it is made no later than one
`
`month after the December 7, 2022 institution date of the Samsung IPR. Further,
`
`Micron’s joinder will not unduly burden or prejudice the parties to the Samsung
`
`IPR and will efficiently resolve the patentability of the ’918 Patent in a single IPR
`
`proceeding. The Micron Petition is substantively identical to Samsung Electronics
`
`Co. Ltd.’s petition (“Samsung Petition”) in the Samsung IPR. The Micron Petition
`
`seeks review of the same patent claims challenged in the Samsung IPR, advances
`
`the same grounds for unpatentability that were instituted in the Samsung IPR, and
`
`relies on the same evidence (including expert declarations) as the Samsung IPR.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, Micron proposes streamlining the proceedings by taking an
`
`“understudy” role (unless Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is terminated from the
`
`proceedings). Finally, Petitioner in the Samsung IPR does not oppose Micron’s
`
`joinder. Accordingly, Micron respectfully requests that the Board institute the
`
`Micron Petition and join this IPR with the Samsung IPR.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`A. Related District Court Litigation
`The ’918 Patent is the subject of the following litigation:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01453 (D.
`
`Del. Filed Oct. 15, 2021);
`
`Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:21-cv-
`
`00463 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 20, 2021);
`
`Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00203 (E.D.
`
`Tex. filed June 10, 2022)
`
`B. Related IPR Proceedings
`The Samsung IPR is the only IPR challenging the claims of the ’918 Patent.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed its petition for inter partes review of the ’918
`
`Patent on May 17, 2022. IPR2022-00996, Paper 1. The Board instituted review in
`
`the Samsung IPR on December 7, 2022. IPR2022-00996, Paper 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENTS
`The Board may join as a party to an instituted inter partes review a person
`
`who has properly filed a petition for inter partes review that warrants institution.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Any request 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). A petition for inter partes review is not subject to the one-
`
`year statutory time bar if the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`“A motion for joinder should (1) set forth 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.” Samsung Elecs., Co. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper
`
`12 at 5 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)).
`
`A. Micron’s Motion for Joinder Is Timely
`Micron’s Motion for Joinder is timely because it is being filed within one
`
`month of the December 7, 2022 institution of the Samsung IPR. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b). Micron’s Petition is not subject to the one-year statutory time bar
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`because it is accompanied by a request for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`B.
`
`Joinder Is Warranted under Kyocera
`1.
`Factor 1: Joinder is appropriate
`Joinder with the Samsung IPR is appropriate because the Micron Petition
`
`involves the same patent, challenges the same claims, and is based on the same
`
`grounds and supported by the same technical expert declaration and evidence as
`
`the Samsung Petition. Additionally, as noted below, the Micron Petition raises
`
`only the grounds from the Samsung IPR. In short, the Micron Petition is
`
`substantively identical to the Samsung Petition. The only minor changes include
`
`changes necessary for proper identification of the party filing the petition and
`
`corresponding documents. On the merits, the Micron Petition should therefore be
`
`instituted for at least the same reasons that the Board instituted the Samsung IPR.
`
`Further, good cause exists to allow joinder, given that the Micron Petition is
`
`substantively identical to the Samsung Petition, and joinder would allow the Board
`
`to effectively resolve the identical challenges raised by both parties in a single
`
`proceeding.
`
`Additionally, Micron is currently involved in litigation based on Patent
`
`Owner’s allegation that Micron’s products infringe the ʼ918 Patent. See Ex. 1074
`
`(Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-00203, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`June 10, 2022)). Micron therefore has a particular interest in the substantial
`
`questions of invalidity surrounding the ’918 Patent. Joinder is also appropriate for
`
`the additional reason that the invalidity grounds as to the challenged claims can be
`
`resolved through Micron’s continued participation in the IPR process, even if the
`
`original petitioner in IPR2022-00996 were to reach a settlement with Patent Owner,
`
`or otherwise cease participation in that proceeding. The public interest in
`
`“permitting full and free competition in the use of ideas which are in reality a part
`
`of the public domain.” Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 670 (1969), favors
`
`allowing joinder in this case, as joinder would allow Micron to continue
`
`participating in the IPR process if Samsung ceases participation.
`
`2.
`
`Factor 2: Micron’s petition proposes no new grounds for
`unpatentability
`The Micron Petition does not present any new grounds or arguments
`
`regarding unpatentability. It is substantively identical to the Samsung Petition.
`
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder
`
`introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” BlackBerry Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01283, Paper 10 at 8
`
`(PTAB Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Samsung, IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 at 9). This
`
`factor therefore favors joinder.
`
`3.
`
`Factor 3: Joinder will not unduly burden or negatively impact
`the Samsung IPR trial schedule
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Joinder will not unduly burden Patent Owner. Because the Micron Petition
`
`presents the same grounds and arguments as the Samsung Petition, there are no
`
`new issues for Patent Owner to address. See Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) (granting motion for joinder
`
`and instituting IPR where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or
`
`discovery from Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR]”).
`
`Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in the Samsung IPR is sufficient
`
`to address the Micron Petition because the issues presented are substantively
`
`identical. See Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Case No. IPR2022-00996,
`
`Paper 7 (Sep. 9, 2022).
`
`Likewise, joinder will not negatively impact the Samsung IPR trial schedule.
`
`Micron expressly consents to the existing trial schedule. Further, as described
`
`below, Micron agrees to take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding, so
`
`long as Samsung remains an active part in the joined proceeding. See, e.g., Apple
`
`Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC, IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB May 30, 2019)
`
`(granting motion for joinder where the movant presented a substantively identical
`
`petition and agreed to take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding); Intel
`
`Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2018-01352, Paper 11 at 3–5 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019)
`
`(same).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, the Micron Petition relies on the same technical expert declaration
`
`as the Samsung Petition. Ex. 1003 (Decl. of Dr. Andrew Wolfe). Therefore,
`
`joinder will not increase the complexity of the proceeding. Indeed, the Board
`
`typically grants joinder where a petitioner presents a different witness with a
`
`substantially similar declaration. See, e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis
`
`Deutschland GmbH, IPR2019-00980, Paper 12 at 3–4, 6–7 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2019);
`
`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., IPR2018-01260, Paper 12 at 4, 6–7 (PTAB Nov.
`
`14, 2018); Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 (Oct. 30,
`
`2018).
`
`4.
`Factor 4: Procedures to simplify briefing and discovery
`Micron agrees to take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding, absent
`
`termination of the original petitioner as a party. Specifically, Micron agrees to the
`
`following conditions regarding the joined proceeding, so long as Samsung remains
`
`an active party in the joined proceeding:
`
`1. Micron will not be making any substantive filings, and Micron agrees
`
`that Samsung alone will be responsible for all substantive petitioner
`
`filings in the joined proceeding;
`
`2. Micron agrees to be bound by all filings by Samsung in the joined
`
`proceeding, except for filings regarding termination and settlement;
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Micron must obtain prior Board authorization to file any paper or to
`
`take any action on its own in the joined proceeding;
`
`4. Micron shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board in the Samsung IPR, or introduce any
`
`argument or discovery not already introduced by Samsung;
`
`5. Micron shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and
`
`Samsung concerning discovery and depositions;
`
`6. Micron will not cross-examine or defend any witness at deposition;
`
`7.
`
`Samsung will be responsible for any oral hearing presentation,
`
`including the preparation of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`Only if Samsung ceases participation in the proceeding:
`
`8. Micron would assume a primary role, meaning it would take over the
`
`role previously filled by Samsung.
`
`See Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00376, Paper 16 at 10 (granting a
`
`motion for joinder with the same conditions).
`
`The eight conditions listed above are intended to capture Petitioners’
`
`proposed “understudy” role. This list of conditions was provided to Samsung prior
`
`to filing, and Samsung stated it does not oppose Micron’s joinder under the
`
`conditions specified above. The conditions are also consistent with the Board’s
`
`stated conditions of joinder in other cases. Id.; see also AT&T Servs., Inc. v.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Convergent Media Solutions, LLC, IPR2017-01235, Paper 11 at 36–37 (PTAB
`
`May 9, 2017) (Lee, J.) (granting joinder with similar limitations on an understudy).
`
`The Board has consistently found that the acceptance of an “understudy”
`
`role removes any undue complications or delay that might allegedly result from
`
`joinder. See, e.g., Apple, IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 at 6–8 (granting motion for
`
`joinder where the movant presented a substantively identical petition and agreed to
`
`take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding); Intel Corp., IPR2018-01352,
`
`Paper 11 at 3–5 (same); Sony Corp., IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6–7. As such,
`
`this factor also favors joinder.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons above, Micron respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`joinder with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. IPR2022-
`
`00996.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Juan C. Yaquian /
`Juan C. Yaquian (Reg. No. 70,755)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capital Street, Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel.: (713) 651-2600
`Fax.: (713) 651-2700
`
`Michael R. Rueckheim (Pro Hac Vice to be
`submitted)
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`255 Shoreline Dr., Suite 520
`Red Wood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel.: (650) 858-6500
`Fax.: (650) 858-6550
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Micron Technology,
`Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
`and Micron Technology Texas LLC
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that on
`
`January 6, 2023, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`“PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)” by FedEx on the Patent Owner at the correspondence
`
`address of record for U.S. Patent No. 11,016,918:
`
`Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
`1909 K Street, NW
`9th Floor
`Washington, DC 20006-1152
`A courtesy copy of this Motion was also served upon litigation counsel for
`
`Patent Owner via email, as follows:
`
`Samuel F. Baxter (sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com)
`Jennifer L. Truelove (jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com)
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`Jason Sheasby (jsheasby@irell.com)
`Annita Zhong (hzhong@irell.com)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`
`
` /
`
`
`
`
`
` Juan C. Yaquian /
`Juan C. Yaquian (Reg. No. 70,755)
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Micron Technology,
`Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
`and Micron Technology Texas LLC
`
`
`
`1
`
`