`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, AMAZON.COM,
`INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES
`LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`LS CLOUD STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00733
`U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 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 ....................................................................... 3
`III. ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 3
`A.
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Is Timely ............................................. 4
`Joinder Is Warranted under Kyocera ..................................................... 4
`1.
`Factor 1: Joinder is appropriate................................................... 4
`2.
`Factor 2: Petitioner’s petition proposes no new grounds for
`unpatentability ............................................................................. 6
`Factor 3: Joinder will not unduly burden or negatively impact
`the Google IPR trial schedule ..................................................... 6
`Factor 4: Procedures to simplify briefing and discovery ............ 8
`4.
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC,
`IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 (PTAB May 30, 2019) ............................................. 7, 9
`AT&T Servs., Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC,
`IPR2017-01235, Paper 11 (PTAB May 9, 2017) (Lee, J.) ................................... 9
`BlackBerry Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01283, Paper 10 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2019) ................................................. 6
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 (Oct. 30, 2018) ........................................................... 7
`Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00376, Paper 16 ..................................................................................... 9
`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2018-01260, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018) ............................................... 7
`Google LLC v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2023-00120 ............................................................................................passim
`Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01352, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) .............................................. 7, 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) ............................................... 4
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) ............................................ 6, 9
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ........................................................................................ 1, 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”),
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC
`
`(“Amazon”) (collectively, “Petitioner”) respectfully submit this Motion for Joinder
`
`(“Motion”) together with a Petition (“Copycat Petition”) for Inter Partes Review
`
`(IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092 (“’092 Patent”). The ’092 Patent is the subject
`
`of another proceeding before the Patent Office, Google LLC v. LS Cloud Storage
`
`Technologies, LLC, IPR2023-00120 (“Google IPR”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner respectfully requests institution of inter partes
`
`review of the same claims of the ’092 Patent challenged in the Google IPR based on
`
`the same grounds presented in the Google IPR and further requests joinder with the
`
`Google IPR.
`
`Petitioner’s request for joinder is timely because it is made before an
`
`institution decision has been issued by the Board in the Google IPR. Further,
`
`Petitioner’s joinder will not unduly burden or prejudice the parties to the Google IPR
`
`and will efficiently resolve the patentability of the ’092 Patent in a single IPR
`
`proceeding. The Copycat Petition is substantively identical to the Google IPR
`
`petition (“Google Petition”). The Copycat Petition seeks review of the same patent
`
`claims challenged in the Google IPR, advances the same grounds for unpatentability
`
`advanced in the Google IPR, and relies on the same evidence (including expert
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`declarations) as the Google IPR. Additionally, Petitioner proposes streamlining the
`
`proceedings by taking an “understudy” role (unless Google LLC is terminated from
`
`the proceedings). Finally, petitioner in the Google IPR does not oppose Petitioner’s
`
`joinder. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute the
`
`Copycat Petition and join this IPR with the Google IPR.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`A. Related District Court Litigation
`The ’092 Patent is the subject of the following litigation:
`
`• LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 6:22-cv-
`
`00319 (W.D. Tex. 2022)
`
`o Dismissed and refiled as LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., 6:22-cv-00845 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (joint motion
`
`to transfer to the Austin Division granted November 22, 2022)
`
`• LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, 6:22-cv-00318
`
`(W.D. Tex. 2022)
`
`o Transferred to the Austin Division as LS Cloud Storage
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, 1:22-cv-00853 (W.D. Tex.
`
`2022) by agreement of the parties on August 15, 2022
`
`• LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 6:22-cv-
`
`00316 (W.D. Tex. 2022)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`o Transferred to the Austin Division as LS Cloud Storage
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 1:22-cv-01167 (W.D.
`
`Tex. 2022) by agreement of the parties on October 31, 2022
`
`• LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 6:22-cv-
`
`00321 (W.D. Tex. 2022)
`
`o Transferred to the Austin Division as LS Cloud Storage
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:22-cv-00974
`
`(W.D. Tex. 2022)
`
`B. Related IPR Proceedings
`The ’092 Patent is the subject of the following IPR Proceeding:
`
`• Google LLC v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC, IPR2023-00120
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092)
`
`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).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`“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.
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Is Timely
`Petitioner’s Motion is timely because it is being filed before an institution
`
`decision has been issued by the Board in the Google IPR. As such, Petitioner’s
`
`Motion meets the requirement that it 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’s Copycat Petition is not subject to the one-year statutory
`
`time bar 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 Google IPR is appropriate because the Copycat 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
`
`Google Petition. Additionally, as noted below, the Copycat Petition raises only the
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`grounds from the Google IPR. In short, the Copycat Petition is substantively
`
`identical to the Google Petition. The only minor changes include changes necessary
`
`for proper identification of the parties filing the petition, the discussion of why
`
`discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is not warranted as it relates to Cisco,
`
`Microsoft, and Amazon, and relevant corresponding documents. On the merits, the
`
`Copycat Petition should therefore be instituted for at least the same reasons that the
`
`Board should institute the Google IPR. Further, good cause exists to allow joinder,
`
`given that the Copycat Petition is substantively identical to the Google Petition, and
`
`joinder would allow the Board to effectively resolve the identical challenges raised
`
`by both parties in a single proceeding.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner is currently involved in litigation based on Patent
`
`Owner’s allegation that Cisco’s, Microsoft’s, and Amazon’s products infringe the
`
`ʼ092 Patent. See above, Section II.A. Petitioner therefore has a particular interest
`
`in the substantial questions of invalidity surrounding the ’092 Patent. Joinder is also
`
`appropriate for the additional reason that the invalidity grounds as to the challenged
`
`claims can be resolved through Petitioner’s continued participation in the IPR
`
`process, even if the original petitioner in IPR2023-00120 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),
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`favors allowing joinder in this case, as joinder would allow Petitioner to continue
`
`participating in the IPR process if Google ceases participation.
`
`2.
`
`Factor 2: Petitioner’s petition proposes no new grounds for
`unpatentability
`The Copycat Petition does not present any new grounds or arguments
`
`regarding unpatentability. It is substantively identical to the Google 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 Google IPR trial schedule
`Joinder will not unduly burden Patent Owner. Because the Copycat Petition
`
`presents the same grounds and arguments as the Google 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 Google IPR would be
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`sufficient to address the Copycat Petition because the issues presented are
`
`substantively identical.
`
`Likewise, joinder will not negatively impact any trial schedule for the Google
`
`IPR. As described below, Petitioner agrees to take an “understudy” role in the joined
`
`proceeding, so long as Google 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).
`
`Finally, the Copycat Petition relies on the same technical expert declaration
`
`as the Google Petition. Ex. 1004 (Decl. of Dr. Paul Franzon, Ph.D.). Therefore,
`
`joinder will not increase the complexity of the proceeding. Indeed, the Board
`
`typically grants joinder even 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`4.
`Factor 4: Procedures to simplify briefing and discovery
`Petitioner agrees to take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding, absent
`
`termination of the original petitioner as a party. Specifically, Petitioner agrees to the
`
`following conditions regarding the joined proceeding, so long as Google remains an
`
`active party in the joined proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner will not be making any substantive filings, and Petitioner
`
`agrees that Google alone will be responsible for all substantive
`
`petitioner filings in the joined proceeding;
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner agrees to be bound by all filings by Google in the joined
`
`proceeding, except for filings regarding termination and settlement;
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner must obtain prior Board authorization to file any paper or to
`
`take any action on its own in the joined proceeding;
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board for the Google IPR, or introduce any argument
`
`or discovery not already introduced by Google;
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and
`
`Google concerning discovery and depositions;
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Petitioner will not cross-examine or defend any witness at deposition;
`
`Google will be responsible for any oral hearing presentation, including
`
`the preparation of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Only if Google ceases participation in the proceeding:
`
`8.
`
`Petitioner would assume a primary role, meaning it would take over the
`
`role previously filled by Google.
`
`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 Petitioner’s proposed
`
`“understudy” role. This list of conditions was provided to Google prior to filing,
`
`and Google stated it does not oppose Petitioner’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. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`joinder with the Google IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 20, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Brian E. Ferguson /
`Brian E. Ferguson
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Reg. No. 36,801
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1901 L Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 202-282-5276
`Email: beferguson@winston.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`Microsoft Corporation
`Juan C. Yaquian
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Reg. No. 70,755
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capital Street, Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 651-2600
`Fax: (713) 651-2700
`Email: jyaquian@winston.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`Microsoft Corporation
`Krishnan Padmanabhan
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`(to seek pro hac vice admission)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`10
`
`
`
`200 Park Avenue
`New York City, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 294-6700
`Fax: (212) 294-4700
`Email: kpadmanabhan@winston.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Michael Rueckheim
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`(to seek pro hac vice admission)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 520
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 858-6500
`Fax: (650) 858-6550
`Email: mrueckheim@winston.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Microsoft Corporation
`Brian C. Nash
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Reg. No. 58,105
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`701 Brazos Street, Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (737) 309-0700
`Email: BNash@mofo.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc.,
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com
`Services LLC
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby confirms that the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) was caused to be served
`
`on March 20, 2023 via overnight courier upon the following counsel of record for
`
`Patent Owner in the related district court litigation:
`
`William P. Ramey, III
`Ramey LLP
`5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800
`Houston, Texas 77006
`(713) 426-3923
`wramey@rameyfirm.com
`
`
`The foregoing was caused to be served on March 20, 2023 via overnight
`
`courier upon the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /
`
` Brian E. Ferguson /
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Reg. No. 36,801
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1901 L Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 202-282-5276
`Email: beferguson@winston.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`
`1
`
`Toler Law Group
`8500 Bluffstone Cove
`Suite A201
`Austin, Texas 78759
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`