`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
`
`