`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________________________
`
`AO KASPERSKY LAB
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WEBROOT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2023-_______
`U.S. Patent No. 8,418,250
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37
`C.F.R. § 42.22, AND § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Legal Standard .......................................................................................... 2
`
`Kaspersky’s Motion for Joinder Is Timely ................................................ 3
`
`The Four Factors Favor Joinder ................................................................ 3
`
`Joinder of Kaspersky Is Appropriate Because It Will Promote an Efficient
`1.
`Determination of the Validity of the ’250 Patent Without Prejudice to Any Party.. 3
`
`Kaspersky’s Petition Does Not Raise Any New Grounds of Unpatentability
`2.
`and Therefore Does Not Add Additional Complexity to the Grounds in the
`CrowdStrike Petitioner’s Petition .......................................................................... 5
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Affect the Schedule in the CrowdStrike IPR .................... 6
`
`Joinder Will Simplify Briefing Because Kaspersky Has Agreed to
`4.
`Consolidated Filings and an Understudy Role if CrowdStrike Petitioners Remain 7
`
`5.
`
`Joinder Will Result in No Prejudice to Patent Owner ............................... 9
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INSTITUTION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC .. 10
`
`INSTITUTION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER FINTIV ........................ 11
`
`Factor 1: Stay ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date ......................................................... 12
`
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding ........................................................... 13
`
`Factor 4: Overlap ................................................................................................... 13
`
`Factor 5: Same Party .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances ............................................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`AO Kaspersky Lab (“Petitioner” or “Kaspersky”) respectfully submits this
`
`Motion for Joinder, concurrently with a Petition (“Kaspersky’s Petition”) for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,418,250 (“’250 patent”).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, and 42.122(b), Kaspersky
`
`requests institution of an inter partes review and joinder with IPR2023-00289
`
`(“CrowdStrike IPR”), which was instituted on July 21, 2023. CrowdStrike, Inc. v.
`
`Webroot Inc., IPR2023-00289, Paper 8 (PTAB July 21, 2023). Kaspersky’s Petition
`
`is essentially a copy of the CrowdStrike IPR. It includes the identical grounds
`
`presented in the CrowdStrike IPR and therefore would create no additional burden
`
`for the Board, the CrowdStrike Petitioners, or Patent Owner if joined. Joinder would
`
`therefore lead to an efficient resolution of the validity of the ’250 patent.
`
`Kaspersky is currently being sued by Patent Owner for infringement of the
`
`’250 patent, styled Webroot, Inc. and Open Text, Inc. v. AO Kaspersky Lab (Case
`
`No. 6:22-CV-00243-ADA-DTG), in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.
`
`Kaspersky has not previously filed any petitions before the PTAB challenging the
`
`validity of the ’250 patent.
`
`Kaspersky stipulates that if joinder is granted, it will cooperate with
`
`CrowdStrike, whether at hearings, at depositions, in filings, or otherwise, as outlined
`
`below. Joinder will not impact the trial schedule because the proceeding based on
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`the CrowdStrike IPR is in its early stages.
`
`Given the similarities of the proceedings, the lack of undue prejudice to Patent
`
`Owner, and the potential benefit to the public and to the Board that would accrue by
`
`Kaspersky’s cooperative participation in the CrowdStrike IPR proceeding in the
`
`event that CrowdStrike Petitioners’ participation terminates, the Board should
`
`institute IPR and grant Kaspersky’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`A petitioner may request joinder, without prior authorization, up to one month
`
`after the institution date of the proceeding to which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b); Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Zond LLC, IPR2014-00781 and
`
`IPR2014-00782, Paper 5 at 3 (PTAB May 29, 2014).
`
`The Board may grant a motion for joining a petitioner for inter partes review
`
`to another inter partes review proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). In determining
`
`whether to exercise its discretion to grant a motion for joinder, the Board considers:
`
`(1) reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) any new grounds of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the petition; (3) what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified. See Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`
`IPR201300385, Paper 17 at 3 (July 29, 2013).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`B. Kaspersky’s Motion for Joinder Is Timely
`
`Joinder may be requested “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). The
`
`CrowdStrike IPR was instituted on July 21, 2023. IPR2023-00289, Paper 7 (PTAB
`
`July 21, 2023). Kaspersky’s current motion is timely as it is being filed within one
`
`month of the institution date.
`
`C. The Four Factors Favor Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors weighs in favor of granting Kaspersky’s Motion for
`
`Joinder. Kaspersky’s Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the
`
`CrowdStrike IPR; it presents no new grounds of unpatentability. Joinder will have
`
`no impact on the pending schedule of the CrowdStrike IPR. Moreover, the briefing
`
`and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`Joinder of Kaspersky Is Appropriate Because It Will
`Promote an Efficient Determination of the Validity of the
`’250 Patent Without Prejudice to Any Party
`
`Kaspersky seeks to join the CrowdStrike IPR proceeding in order to ensure
`
`that an accused infringer1 with an active interest in the proceeding remains a party to
`
`this Trial if the CrowdStrike Petitioners’ participation is terminated prior to
`
`
`1 Patent Owner has accused Kaspersky of infringing the ’250 patent in Webroot,
`
`Inc. and Open Text, Inc. v. AO Kaspersky Lab (Case No. 6:22-CV-00243-ADA-
`
`DTG), in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`completion. Thus, joining Kaspersky to the CrowdStrike IPR proceeding is the most
`
`practical way to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the challenge
`
`to the ’250 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`If Kaspersky is joined as a party, the validity of the grounds raised in the
`
`CrowdStrike IPR can be determined in a single proceeding. Joinder is also
`
`appropriate because CrowdStrike’s petition challenges the validity of the same
`
`claims of the ’250 patent on identical grounds to those in the CrowdStrike IPR. There
`
`are no substantive differences between Kaspersky’s and CrowdStrike’s Petition,
`
`IPR2023-00289, Paper 1 (Dec. 29, 2022). Kaspersky also relies on the same
`
`supporting evidence in its Petition as is relied on in the CrowdStrike IPR. Kaspersky
`
`also relies on substantially the same supporting evidence in its Petition as is relied
`
`on in the CrowdStrike IPR.2
`
`
`2 The supporting expert declaration of V.S. Subrahmanian, Ph.D. submitted by
`
`Kaspersky agrees with the facts, analysis, and conclusions of the expert declaration
`
`in the CrowdStrike IPR. The declaration of V.S. Subrahmanian does not contain
`
`any new opinions not included in the CrowdStrike IPR expert declaration. See
`
`Everlight Elecs. Co., v. Document Security Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01260, Paper No.
`
`12 at 6-7 (Nov. 14, 2018) (granting motion for joinder where petitioner submitted
`
`separate but substantially identical expert declaration).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`A consolidated proceeding, including Kaspersky and the CrowdStrike
`
`Petitioners, will therefore be more efficient and less wasteful, as only a single trial
`
`on these common grounds would be required. See, e.g., Oracle America Inc. v.
`
`Realtime Data LLC, IPR2016-01672, Paper 13 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2017) (noting
`
`that “joining Oracle’s identical challenges to those in the 1002 IPR will lead to
`
`greater efficiency while reducing the resources necessary from both Realtime and
`
`the Board”). The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party
`
`seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised
`
`in the existing proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-
`
`00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted).
`
`Joining Kaspersky as a party to the CrowdStrike IPR would promote the
`
`public interest relating to the unpatentability of the ’250 patent and not cause any
`
`undue prejudice to the Patent Owner or the CrowdStrike petitioners. The Patent
`
`Owner must respond to the common invalidity grounds identified in the CrowdStrike
`
`and Kaspersky Petitions regardless of joinder.
`
`2.
`
`Kaspersky’s Petition Does Not Raise Any New Grounds of
`Unpatentability and Therefore Does Not Add Additional
`Complexity to the Grounds in the CrowdStrike Petitioner’s
`Petition
`
`Kaspersky’s Petition challenges the validity of the ’250 patent on identical
`
`grounds to those in the CrowdStrike IPR. See IPR2023-00289, Paper 1 (Dec. 29,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`2022). Kaspersky’s supporting materials―including
`
`its supporting expert
`
`declaration, exhibits, and exhibit numbering―are substantially identical to those
`
`presented in the CrowdStrike IPR. See supra. While Kaspersky uses its own expert
`
`declarant, the expert’s declaration agrees with the facts, analysis, and conclusions of
`
`the expert declaration in the CrowdStrike IPR and does not contain any new opinions
`
`not included in the CrowdStrike IPR expert declaration. See Everlight Elecs. Co., v.
`
`Document Security Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01260, Paper No. 12 at 6-7 (Nov. 14, 2018)
`
`(granting motion for joinder where petitioner submitted separate but substantially
`
`identical expert declaration). Further, unity of exhibits and exhibit numbering with
`
`the CrowdStrike IPR has been maintained. Accordingly, no new grounds are being
`
`introduced. See Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353, Paper No.
`
`11 at 5-6 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2015) (granting motion for joinder where petitioners relied
`
`“on the same prior art, same arguments, and same evidence, including the same
`
`expert and a substantively identical declaration”).
`
`Therefore, consolidation of this proceeding with CrowdStrike’s via joinder of
`
`Kaspersky’s Petition will not raise any new issues of unpatentability and will not
`
`impose any additional burden on the Board or add additional complexity to the case.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Affect the Schedule in the CrowdStrike
`IPR
`Given that the Board recently instituted review of the CrowdStrike IPR,
`
`joinder of Kaspersky would not affect the schedule in any forthcoming trial.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Kaspersky’s participation should result in no changes to the schedule.
`
`Kaspersky agrees to adhere to all applicable deadlines set forth in the
`
`CrowdStrike IPR Scheduling Order. The Patent Owner’s Response will not be
`
`affected because the issues in Kaspersky’s Petition are identical to those in the
`
`CrowdStrike IPR petition. Patent Owner will thus not be required to provide any
`
`additional analysis or arguments.
`
`4.
`
`Joinder Will Simplify Briefing Because Kaspersky Has
`Agreed to Consolidated Filings and an Understudy Role if
`CrowdStrike Petitioners Remain
`
`To further prevent joinder from imposing any burden on the CrowdStrike
`
`Petitioners or Patent Owner and to further ensure that there are no changes in the
`
`potential trial schedule, Kaspersky agrees, as long as the CrowdStrike Petitioners
`
`remain a party to the CrowdStrike IPR, to take an understudy role, which will
`
`simplify briefing and discovery. In this role, Kaspersky agrees to the following
`
`conditions:
`
`(a)
`
`Kaspersky shall not make any substantive filing and shall be bound by
`
`the filings of the CrowdStrike Petitioners, unless a filing concerns termination and
`
`settlement, or issues solely involving Kaspersky;
`
`(b)
`
`Kaspersky shall not present any argument or make any presentation at
`
`oral hearing unless an issue solely involves Kaspersky, or when addressing Board-
`
`approved motions that do not affect the CrowdStrike Petitioners, or their respective
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`position;
`
`(c)
`
`Kaspersky shall not seek to cross-examine or defend the cross-
`
`examination of any witness, unless the topic of cross-examination concerns issues
`
`solely involving Kaspersky;
`
`(d)
`
`Kaspersky shall not seek discovery from Patent Owner on issues not
`
`solely involving Kaspersky;
`
`(e)
`
`Kaspersky will not rely on expert testimony beyond that submitted by
`
`the CrowdStrike Petitioners unless the CrowdStrike Petitioners are terminated from
`
`the case prior to any necessary depositions. If the CrowdStrike Petitioners are not
`
`terminated from the case prior to any necessary depositions, Kaspersky agrees to rely
`
`entirely on, and be bound by, the expert declarations and depositions in the
`
`CrowdStrike IPR. Kaspersky’s expert declaration of V.S. Subrahmanian is
`
`substantially identical to the Lee declaration filed by the CrowdStrike Petitioners.
`
`V.S. Subrahmanian would not be relied on if the CrowdStrike Petitioners continue
`
`to participate in the CrowdStrike IPR. See, e.g., Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`
`IPR2014-00550, Paper 38 at 5 (PTAB April 10, 2015). Unless and until the current
`
`petitioners in IPR2023-00289 cease to participate in the instituted CrowdStrike IPR
`
`proceeding, Kaspersky will not assume an active role.3
`
`
`3 For clarity, should the CrowdStrike Petitioners’ participation in this IPR
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Accordingly, due to Kaspersky taking only an “understudy” role, Patent
`
`Owner and the CrowdStrike Petitioners 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. These steps will minimize or
`
`eliminate any potential complications or delay that could potentially result from
`
`joinder. See Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11
`
`at 6-7 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2015) (granting motion because “joinder would increase
`
`efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and discovery, and would reduce costs
`
`and burdens on the parties as well as the Board” where second petitioner agreed to
`
`“understudy” role). Kaspersky will also abide by any additional conditions the
`
`Board deems appropriate for an “understudy” role.
`
`5.
`
`Joinder Will Result in No Prejudice to Patent Owner
`
`As noted above, Kaspersky’s joining of the CrowdStrike IPR proceeding
`
`should not result in any prejudice to Patent Owner. No 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 as a result of
`
`Kaspersky’s joinder. Thus, the Patent Owner would not need to expend any
`
`
`proceeding terminate, Kaspersky would take over primary responsibility for
`
`subsequent filings and discovery.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`additional resources beyond those required in the current CrowdStrike IPR
`
`proceeding.
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC
`
`Factor 1: Under General Plastic, factor 1 considers “whether the same
`
`petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent.”
`
`See Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19,
`
`16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (Section II.B.4.i. precedential). Here, Kaspersky has not
`
`previously filed any petition against the ’250 patent.
`
`Kaspersky and the CrowdStrike Petitioners are separate, unrelated petitioners,
`
`and are not similarly situated for purposes of Factor 1. Kaspersky was sued separately
`
`and accused of infringement based on different products from CrowdStrike. Neither
`
`Kaspersky nor the CrowdStrike Petitioners have provided any products or
`
`technology to the other leading to an allegation of infringement of the ’250 Patent.
`
`This factor weighs in favor of institution and against discretionary denial.
`
`Factors 2, 4, and 5: As to the timing examined in these factors, Kaspersky
`
`did not previously file a first petition prior to this petition, and while Kaspersky
`
`became aware of the Kester reference as of mid-2022 and the Honig and Kennedy
`
`references as of the end of 2022, it made no serial attack on the ’250 patent and has
`
`filed this IPR within the one-month time period under 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b). These
`
`factors thus weigh in favor of institution and against discretionary denial.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Factor 3: This Petition is Kaspersky’s first petition challenging the ’250
`
`patent, and Kaspersky has not filed a second petition challenging the same patent.
`
`This factor weighs in favor of institution and against discretionary denial.
`
`Factors 6 and 7: These factors weigh in favor of institution, as there should
`
`be no material impact on the Board’s finite resources or its ability to issue a final
`
`determination on CrowdStrike’s Petition within one year.
`
`IV.
`
`INSTITUTION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER FINTIV
`
`Under the “Fintiv factors,” the Board may consider parallel litigation,
`
`including an early trial date, in determining whether to institute under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a). NHK Spring Co., Ltd., v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752,
`
`Paper 8 at 19–20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 2–3, 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Those
`
`factors favor institution here.
`
`Factor 1: Stay
`
`
`
`Parallel litigation is ongoing. While no stay has been requested, CrowdStrike (one
`
`of the defendants in the pending parallel litigation) indicated in the CrowdStrike IPR petition that it
`
`may seek a stay of the consolidated litigation if institution is granted. The
`
`CrowdStrike IPR was instituted on July 21, 2023, thus favoring institution. At worst,
`
`this factor is neutral because the Board “will not attempt to predict” how the district
`
`court will proceed. Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB Jun. 16, 2020).
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date
`
`
`
`The District Court’s current scheduling order sets the trial date for August 19,
`
`2024, which date is assigned to each defendant in five separate lawsuits that have
`
`been consolidated for pretrial issues. Scheduling Order (Ex. 1023), 8. Because
`
`the court’s consolidation is limited to pretrial issues, separate trials will be required,
`
`and trial cannot proceed on August 19, 2024, for all five defendants.
`
`The Board’s FWD deadline in this case is no later than July 2024, one month
`
`before the currently scheduled trial date. Further, “additional supporting factors” are
`
`at play weighing towards a longer than average filing-to-trial window. First, the
`
`Kaspersky District Court litigation involves fourteen patents, including ten asserted
`
`by PO against Petitioner and four counterclaim infringement allegations brought by
`
`Petitioner. There are five additional patents asserted by PO against the other
`
`defendants. Likewise, the non-Kaspersky defendants have asserted more than twenty
`
`additional counterclaim infringement allegations against PO. With the multitude of
`
`defendants, patents, and claims and an inability to hold five trials at the same time,
`
`the “actual trial date” is likely to be delayed past the scheduled August 19, 2024,
`
`trial date.
`
`In sum, the Board’s FWD deadline in this case falls a month before a trial
`
`would occur based on the court’s scheduling order. Further, the additional
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`complicating factors at issue here suggest trial will occur even later than the
`
`scheduling order sets forth, weighing heavily in favor of institution.
`
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding
`
`
`
`As indicated above, the parallel proceeding is in its early stages. Beyond claim
`
`construction, the parties have invested little in the parallel proceeding. Fact
`
`discovery is not scheduled to close until January 18, 2024. The deadline to add
`
`parties is not until October 3, 2023. Opening expert reports are not due until January
`
`30, 2024, and expert discovery does not close until March 12, 2024. Therefore, the
`
`parties have invested minimal time in the parallel proceeding. The lack of investment
`
`weighs in favor of institution or is at least neutral.
`
`Factor 4: Overlap
`
`
`
`Petitioner did not raise Kester, Honig, or Kennedy, the prior art relied upon in
`
`the instant petition, in preliminary invalidity contentions filed in the parallel
`
`litigation. However, final infringement and invalidity contentions are not due until
`
`October 17, 2023. Therefore, the extent of overlap is unknown at this time. Further,
`
`the Petitioner reserves the right to stipulate to elimination of any overlap between
`
`this proceeding and the parallel litigation should the Board allow joinder of this
`
`petition with the already instituted CrowdStrike IPR. This would mitigate the
`
`concerns over duplication. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019,
`
`Paper 12, at 18-19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020); SandRevolution II, LLC v. Cont’l
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, at 11-12, (PTAB June
`
`16, 2020). Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`Factor 5: Same Party
`
`
`
`The Parties are the same in the district court litigation. However, members of
`
`the Board have noted Fintiv addresses only the scenario in which the petitioner is
`
`unrelated to a defendant in a parallel proceeding, finding this should weigh against
`
`denying institution, but that Fintiv “says nothing about situations in which the
`
`petitioner is the same as, or is related to, the district court defendant.” Cisco Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd., IPR2020-00122, Paper 15 at 10-11 (PTAB May
`
`15, 2020) (APJ Crumbley, dissenting) (noting that disfavoring a “defendant in the
`
`district court” is “contrary to the goal of providing district court litigants an
`
`alternative venue to resolve questions of patentability”). Therefore, this factor
`
`weighs slightly against institution.
`
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances
`
`
`
`“[W]here the PTAB determines that the information presented at the
`
`institution
`
`stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge,
`
`that
`
`determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny
`
`institution under Fintiv.” Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., et al. v. Billjco LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00420, Paper 17, at 6 (PTAB July 12, 2022) (“[c]ompelling, meritorious
`
`challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.”). The strength of Petitioner’s proposed grounds presented above weighs
`
`strongly in favor of institution. Id. (refusing to deny institution under the Fintiv
`
`framework based solely on the strength of Petitioner’s grounds).
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons above, Kaspersky respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’250 Patent be instituted and that Kaspersky be joined to
`
`the CrowdStrike IPR proceeding IPR2023-00289.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph T. Miotke/
`Joseph T. Miotke, Reg. No. 47,798
`Dewitt LLP
`901 Marquette Avenue
`2100 AT&T Tower
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 305-1400
`
`15
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6 and 42.105, I hereby certify that I caused a
`
`true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion For Joinder Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and § 42.122(b) to be served on the Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel of record via U.S. Priority Mail Express delivery service at the
`
`following address listed on USPTO PAIR:
`
`
`
`Date of service August 18, 2023
`
`Manner of service FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Persons served Merchant & Gould P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P.O. Box 2903
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-0903
`
`Dated: August 18, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph T. Miotke/
`
`Joseph T. Miotke, Reg. No. 47,798
`Dewitt LLP
`901 Marquette Avenue
`2100 AT&T Tower
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 305-1400
`
`
`
`
`
`