Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
`Date: June 24, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, 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(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
`Date: June 24, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, 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(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3 (“Pet.”)) requesting inter partes
`review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 (“challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,094,888 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’888 patent”). On March 28, 2024,
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On May 7, 2024, Petitioner filed a Motion for
`Joinder (Paper 11, “Joinder Mot.” or “Motion for Joinder”) seeking to be
`joined as a party to T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2024-00137 (the “T-Mobile IPR”).1 Petitioner also filed a Motion to
`Withdraw Sotera2 Stipulation. Paper 10 (“Mot. Withdraw” or “Motion to
`Withdraw”). Patent Owner did not file an Opposition to the Motion for
`Joinder, but Patent Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Withdraw. Paper 12 (“Oppn.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Opposition. Paper 13 (“Reply”). We have authority and jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 6, 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4.
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine institution of inter
`partes review is warranted on the same grounds instituted in the T-Mobile
`IPR, and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`1 Petitioner refers to “IPR2024-00135” in its Petition (Pet. 1), but that inter
`partes review involves a challenge to a different patent. See T-Mobile USA,
`Inc. et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, IPR2024-00135, Paper 1, 1. We
`understand Petitioner to be referring to Case No. “IPR2024-00137.” We
`deem Petitioner’s reference to the other proceeding a harmless typographical
`error.
`2 Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB
`Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to§ II.A).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Real Parties in Interest
`A.
`Petitioner identifies Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. as real parties in interest. Pet. 58. Petitioner also states
`“[o]ut of an abundance of caution and to avoid additional issues associated
`with real parties-in-interest, Petitioner likewise identifies T-Mobile USA,
`Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, and Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless [(‘Carriers’)] because Petitioner’s
`products are accused of infringement in their respective patent infringement
`actions.” Id. Patent Owner names itself as the real party in interest. Paper 5,
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`B.
`Both parties identify, as matters involving or related to the ’888
`patent, the following district court proceedings: Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
`v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex.) (“the Carriers’
`parallel district court case”); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:22-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.);
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00474 (E.D. Tex.);
`and Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:23-cv-
`00285 (E.D. Tex.) (“Petitioner’s parallel district court case”). Pet. 58;
`Paper 5, 2. As indicated above, the T-Mobile IPR is related because it
`involves challenges to the same claims of the same patent.
`
`The ’888 Patent
`C.
`The ’888 patent is titled “Wireless Device Handoff Between Wireless
`Networks.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’888 patent describes “example
`methods to be implemented at a first wireless network to handoff a wireless
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`device to a second wireless network.” Id. at 1:38–40. One embodiment of a
`wireless communication system including two wireless networks is
`illustrated in Figure 1A. Id. at 2:59–60.
`
`
`
`Figure 1A, above, illustrates wireless communication system 100 that
`includes wireless networks 110 and 120. Id. at 4:1–2. As shown in Figure
`1A, wireless network 110 includes coverage manager 112 and antenna array
`114. Id. at 4:2–4. Wireless network 120 includes adaption manager 122 and
`antenna array 124. Id. at 4:4–6.
`Wireless network 110 has a coverage area indicated in Figure 1A as
`coverage area 115. Id. at 4:6–8. Antenna array 124 of wireless network 120
`is adaptable via beamforming to enable wireless network 120 to have
`variable coverage areas shown in Figure 1A as coverage area 125-1 and
`coverage area 125-2. Id. at 4:8–12. As a result of the variable coverage
`areas, wireless device 130A is within past coverage area 125-1, but outside
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`of current coverage area 125-2. Id. at 5:35–38. Thus, although wireless
`device 130A is not currently covered by wireless network 120, past coverage
`area 125-1 indicates that network 120 may be capable of providing
`coverage. Id. at 5:38–41.
`Coverage manager 112 is configured to determine whether wireless
`device 130A is capable of being covered by wireless network 120. Id. at
`6:1–4. It may be determined that wireless device 130A and/or wireless
`network 110 would benefit from the handoff of wireless device 130A to
`wireless network 120. Id. at 6:6–9. For example, wireless device 130A may
`obtain a stronger signal from wireless network 120 or wireless device 130A
`may be moving towards wireless network 120 and away from wireless
`network 110. Id. at 6:9–16. Coverage manager 112 transmits a handoff
`request to wireless network 120. Id. at 6:21–24. Adaption manager 122 of
`wireless network 120 receives the handoff request and determines whether
`to adapt antenna array 124 to facilitate coverage of wireless device 130A. Id.
`at 6:26–30. If a determination is made to adapt antenna array 124, adaption
`manager 122 transmits a confirmation to indicate acceptance of the handoff
`request. Id. at 6:30–33. The coverage area for wireless network 120 is now
`similar to coverage area 125-1 and wireless device 130A is then handed off
`from wireless network 110 to wireless network 120. Id. at 6:33–37.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Petitioner challenges claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 of the ’888
`patent. Pet. 1. Claims 9 and 20 are the only independent challenged claims.
`Claims 10 and 12 depend directly from claim 9 and claims 21 and 23 depend
`directly from claim 20. Independent claims 9 and 20, reproduced below, are
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`[9.p3] A method implemented at a first wireless network
`9.
`for a mobile wireless device handoff between a second wireless
`network and the first wireless network, the method comprising:
`[9.a] receiving a handoff request from the second wireless
`network, the handoff request based, at least in part, on a
`determination by the second wireless network that the
`wireless device is not currently covered by the first
`wireless network but is capable of being covered by the
`first wireless network;
`[9.b] based, at least in part, on the handoff request, adapting one
`or more beams of an antenna array to facilitate coverage
`of the wireless device by the first wireless network; and
`[9.c] transmitting a confirmation from the first wireless network
`to the second wireless network to indicate acceptance of
`the handoff request, wherein the wireless device is handed
`off from the second wireless network to the first wireless
`network.
`Ex. 1001, 18:30–49.
`20.
`[20.p] A system for a wireless device handoff between a
`first wireless network and a second wireless network, the system
`comprising:
`[20.a] an antenna array configured to generate one or more
`adaptable beams to modify a coverage area for the first
`wireless network; and
`[20.b] an adaption manager having logic, the logic configured to:
`[20.c] receive a handoff request from the second wireless
`network, the handoff request based, at least in part, on
`a determination by the second wireless network that the
`wireless device is capable of being covered by the first
`wireless network,
`[20.d] cause a beam from among the one or more adaptable
`beams to be adapted in order to enable the wireless
`device to be covered by the first wireless network, and
`
`3 Herein we use Petitioner’s designations for the elements of claims 9 and
`20. Pet. 26–47, 52–55.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`[20.e] transmit a confirmation to the second wireless network
`to indicate acceptance of the handoff request, wherein
`the wireless device is handed off from the second
`wireless network to the first wireless network.
`Ex. 1001, 19:59–20:10.
`
`TS 36.300
`
`Evidence
`E.
`Petitioner relies on the prior art references in the table below.
`Name
`Reference
`Exhibit
`Chitrapu
`US 2006/0111149 A1, filed Dec. 22, 2005,
`1003
`published May 25, 2006
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`(3GPP); Technical Specification (TS)
`36.300 V10.3.0
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Mr. James A. Proctor
`
`(Ex. 1005) to support its contentions that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable. Patent Owner does not rely on declarant testimony at this early
`stage in the proceeding.
`
`1223
`
`Asserted Grounds
`F.
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims of the ’888 patent are
`unpatentable based on the ground in the table below (Pet. 3):
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §4
`Reference/Basis
`9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 23
`103(a)
`Chitrapu, TS 36.300
`
`
`
`
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16, 2013.
`Because the challenged claims of the ’888 patent have an apparent effective
`filing date before March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw and Discretionary Denial
`A.
`Arguments
`Petitioner states that it “respectfully submit[s] this Motion to
`Withdraw [its] conditional Sotera Stipulation (Paper 8) filed on May 7,
`2024, and to replace it with the Sand Revolution stipulation made by
`Petitioners and real parties-in-interest (the ‘Carriers’) in T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC, IPR2024-00137.” Mot. Withdraw 1; see
`IPR2024-00137, Paper 1 at 62 (presenting Sand Revolution stipulation).
`Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation was filed on May 7, 2024 in response to
`issues raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Paper 7. Petitioner
`argues that its stipulation is “a unilateral, conditional offer between
`Petitioner[] and the Board,” but Petitioner acknowledges that, as set forth in
`its stipulation, if trial is instituted, “Petitioner will forego its right to pursue
`in the parallel litigation the same grounds or any grounds it could
`reasonably have raised.” Mot. Withdraw 3 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner argues in its Opposition that we have “no jurisdiction or
`authority” to grant Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw and “no authority allows
`for withdrawing a stipulation.” Oppn. 2. Patent Owner also argues that
`“allowing [for] stipulation withdrawals would result in bad policy.” Id.
`Regarding the first argument, Patent Owner states that it “filed a
`copy” of Petitioner’s “Sotera stipulation in the district court proceeding.” Id.
`at 1. Patent Owner argues “[e]nforcement of this stipulation at trial is within
`the jurisdiction and power of the Court, not” the Board, and Petitioner must
`file a motion with the district court. Id. Patent Owner’s argument does not
`address that Petitioner filed its stipulation in the instant proceeding. Paper 8.
`Patent Owner does not present persuasive argument or authority that
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`prohibits our authorizing Petitioner’s withdrawal of its stipulation from the
`instant proceeding.
`Patent Owner also argues that granting Petitioner’s Motion to
`Withdraw “can potentially open the door to all sorts of unusual
`circumstances that will create unnecessary work for the Patent Office.”
`Oppn. 4. Patent Owner, however, does not provide persuasive argument that
`our authorizing Petitioner’s withdrawal of its stipulation from the instant
`proceeding would prejudice Patent Owner or burden the Board.
`We “may determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for
`any situation not specifically covered by this [Part 42] and may enter non-
`final orders to administer the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5. 5 Petitioner’s
`Motion to Withdraw was filed prior to our consideration of Petitioner’s
`Sotera stipulation, and therefore this is not a case where the Board has
`invested effort or made rulings based on that stipulation. Additionally,
`Patent Owner does not argue persuasively that it is prejudiced by Petitioner’s
`withdrawal of its Sotera stipulation and agreement to be bound by the
`Carriers’ Sand Revolution stipulation in the instant proceeding. Moreover,
`allowing Petitioner to replace its Sotera stipulation with the Carriers’ Sand
`Revolution stipulation will place the Petitioner and the Carriers in the same
`posture in the joined IPR proceedings. For these reasons, we grant
`Petitioner’s request to the extent that we authorize Petitioner’s withdrawal of
`its Sotera stipulation from the instant proceeding in favor of the Carriers’
`Sand Revolution stipulation. As a result, we consider the parties’
`
`
`5 Petitioner also directs our attention to a proceeding in which a
`determination was made that a petitioner had effectively withdrawn its
`stipulation. LG Electronics, Inc., v. Constellation Designs, LLC, IPR2023-
`00228, Paper 10, 11 n. 3.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`discretionary denial arguments in light of the Carriers’ Sand Revolution
`stipulation without considering Petitioner’s prior Sotera stipulation.
`Our ruling concerning Petitioner’s stipulation is limited to this IPR
`proceeding, over which we have jurisdiction. We make no determination or
`representation here regarding how a district court, including the one in
`parallel district-court case, will treat the withdrawal of Petitioner’s Sotera
`stipulation and replacement with the Carriers’ Sand Revolution stipulation.
`Patent Owner asserts we should exercise our discretion to deny the
`Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because, according to Patent Owner, each
`of the “six Fintiv[6] factors weigh[s] in favor of the Board exercising its
`discretion to deny institution here.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owner’s
`arguments are substantively similar to those presented in the T-Mobile IPR
`and differ in that Patent Owner bases its analysis on two district court cases,
`including the Carriers’ parallel district court case that Patent Owner raised in
`the T-Mobile IPR and Petitioner’s parallel district-court case. Prelim. Resp.
`23–43.
`We start by considering Patent Owner’s arguments based on the
`Carriers’ parallel district-court case. The arguments and facts are
`substantively the same as those presented in the T-Mobile IPR, except
`Petitioner here is not a defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case.
`In the T-Mobile IPR, we found that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5
`weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution, and factor 4
`weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution. T-Mobile
`
`
`6 See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20,
`2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”).
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`IPR, Paper 15, 10–14. Because Petitioner in the instant proceeding is not a
`defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case, we find that factor 5
`weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution in the instant
`proceeding. Regarding the other factors, for the same reasons discussed in
`the decision to institute in the T-Mobile IPR, we find that factor 1 is neutral,
`factors 2 and 3 weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution,
`and factor 4 weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny
`institution. T-Mobile IPR, Paper 15, 10–14.
`We turn to Patent Owner’s arguments based on the Petitioner’s
`parallel district-court case. Our analysis of factors 1 and 4 is the same as that
`presented in the T-Mobile IPR because no stay has been requested in
`Petitioner’s parallel district-court case and Petitioner has agreed to be bound
`by the same stipulation submitted in the T-Mobile IPR. Joinder Mot. 1.
`Based on the facts presented by the parties, including the May 5, 2025 trial
`date, we find that factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh marginally in favor of exercising
`discretion to deny institution.
`Taking “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the
`system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11,
`6), we conclude that the evidence of record and our analysis of factors 1–5
`relating to both district-court cases favors exercising our discretion to deny
`institution of an inter partes review. Regarding factor 6, for the reasons
`discussed in our institution decision in the T-Mobile IPR, we determine, on
`this preliminary record, that the merits here are compelling.
`Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`B.
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same grounds of
`unpatentability as the ones on which we instituted review in the T-Mobile
`IPR. Compare Pet. 3, 21–56, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 25–60. Indeed,
`Petitioner contends that “the grounds of challenge in this Petition are a
`‘copycat’ of the Petition filed in” the T-Mobile IPR and the “expert
`declaration filed in this proceeding is substantively identical to the expert
`declaration in” the T-Mobile IPR and is “signed by the same expert.” Id. at 1.
`Patent Owner states that its arguments on the merits in its Preliminary
`Response “are likewise ‘copycat’ of the merits arguments Patent Owner
`presented in its preliminary response in IPR2024-00137.” Prelim. Resp. 1
`n.1.
`
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 of
`the ’888 Patent on May 22, 2024, based on the petition filed in the T-Mobile
`IPR after consideration of all arguments and evidence presented by the
`parties including Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response. T-
`Mobile IPR, Paper 15. For the same reasons discussed in the Decision on
`Institution in the T-Mobile IPR, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of showing at least one claim of the ’888 patent is
`unpatentable. See id. Accordingly, we find the Petition warrants institution
`of inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised.
`
`C. Motion for Joinder
`Joinder in inter partes reviews is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`which states:
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`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 partes
`review under section 314.
`To ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`proceeding, 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. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide at 76. 7
`Petitioner argues joinder is appropriate in this proceeding because
`“[a]ll four factors considered by the Board weigh in favor of joinder.”
`Joinder Mot. 6. Petitioner argues “the Instant Petition does not present any
`new grounds of unpatentability” and “it is substantively identical to” the T-
`Mobile IPR Petition. Id. Petitioner also argues “joinder will have minimal, if
`any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are substantively identical, and
`Petitioner will accept an ‘understudy’ role unless and until” all Carriers are
`terminated from the proceeding. Id. at 6–7. Petitioner further argues “the
`briefing and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single
`proceeding.” Id. at 7.
`Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and cited supporting
`evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that it
`is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner to the T-Mobile
`IPR. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder within one month after
`
`7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`institution of trial in the T-Mobile IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`Petitioner challenges the same claims that are challenged in the T-Mobile
`IPR on the same grounds using the same prior art and evidence. See, e.g.,
`Joinder Mot. 1, 6–7; compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6,
`16–41. Petitioner states it will take an “understudy” role in the T-Mobile IPR
`and only assume a primary role should all Carriers cease participation in the
`T-Mobile IPR. See Joinder Mot. 6. Petitioner further asserts that joinder will
`have little to no impact on the trial schedule for the T-Mobile IPR and will
`simplify briefing and discovery. See Joinder Mot. 6, 9–11. Accordingly,
`joinder to the T-Mobile IPR would further the goals of a just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of Petitioner’s challenge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`Therefore, for the reasons given, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`and join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review
`of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 of the ’888 patent is hereby instituted on
`all grounds stated in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this Decision;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2024-
`00137 is granted, and Petitioner is joined as petitioners in IPR2024-00137;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw its
`Sotera Stipulation (Paper 10) is granted to the extent that we authorize
`Petitioner’s withdrawal of its Sotera stipulation (Paper 8) from the instant
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`proceeding and treat Petitioner as being bound by the Carriers’ Sand
`Revolution stipulation in IPR2024-00137, but we make no determination
`regarding the effectiveness of withdrawal of the stipulation in any case
`pending in a district court;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s role in IPR2024-00137 shall
`be limited as stated by Petitioner in the Motion for Joinder unless and until
`T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Corporation, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Nokia of America
`Corporation, and Ericsson Inc. cease to participate in IPR2024-00137;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted grounds of unpatentability on
`which the Board instituted inter partes review in IPR2024-00137 are
`unchanged and remain the only instituted grounds;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in IPR2024-00137,
`and any modifications thereto, shall govern the schedule of the joined
`proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings shall be made in
`IPR2024-00137;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2024-00137 shall
`be changed to reflect joinder of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as petitioners in accordance with the attached
`example;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record of IPR2024-00137; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is terminated
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`James Glass
`Quincy Lu
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`quincylu@quinnemanuel.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Reza Mirzaie
`Amy Hayden
`Neil Rubin
`Qi Tong
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`ptong@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00315
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., AT&T SERVICES INC.,
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T CORPORATION,
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS,
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ERICSSON INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,8
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`were joined as petitioners in this proceeding based on a petition and motion
`for joinder filed in IPR2024-00315, which were granted.
`
`17
`
`
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
