Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: July 9, 2024
`
`
`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.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`____________
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`were joined as petitioners in these proceedings based on a petition and
`motion for joinder filed in IPR2024-00315, which were granted.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: July 9, 2024
`
`
`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.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`____________
`
`Before BARBARA A. PARVIS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`were joined as petitioners in these proceedings based on a petition and
`motion for joinder filed in IPR2024-00315, which were granted.
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Patent Owner”) is the owner of U.S.
`Patent 9,094,888 B2 (“the ’888 patent”). Paper 9, 1. 2 On November 22,
`2023, 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. (“the Carriers”) filed a Petition for
`inter partes review challenging the patentability of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21
`and 23 of the ’888 patent. Paper 1. On December 18, 2023, Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively,
`“Samsung”) filed a petition for inter partes review challenging the
`patentability of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 of the ’888 patent in
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2024-00315 (“the ’315 IPR”). ’315 IPR, Paper 3.
`We instituted review in the instant proceeding on May 22, 2024.
`Paper 15. With our authorization, Samsung filed a Motion for Joinder in the
`’315 IPR, which we granted on June 24, 2024. Paper 18. We explained that
`Samsung’s “role” in the instant proceeding “shall be limited” to an
`understudy role unless the Carriers cease to participate. Id. at 14–15. Also,
`the ’315 IPR was terminated. Id.
`On June 28, 2024, Samsung emailed the Board requesting that we
`expunge Paper 8 in the ’315 IPR and we allow Samsung to file a further
`paper in the ’315 IPR. Ex. 3003. More specifically, Samsung’s email
`included a subject “Re: IPR2024-00315” and indicated that
`[p]ursuant to the Board’s Institution Decision in the above-
`captioned matter (Paper 14), [Samsung] request[s] that its Sotera
`
`
`2 Herein citations are to papers and exhibits in the instant proceeding, unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`Stipulation (Paper 8) be expunged. [Samsung] further request[s]
`that, consistent with the Board’s order that the Board will “treat
`Petitioner as being bound by the Carriers’ Sand Revolution
`stipulation in IPR2024-00137” (Paper 14 at 15), the Board grant
`Petitioners permission to file the same Sand Revolution-style
`stipulation filed with the Petition in IPR2024-00137, Paper 1 at
`62.
`Id. Later Patent Owner emailed the Board stating “Patent Owner opposes
`expunging the Sotera stipulation, which should remain public record.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s email also states that “Petitioner did not meet and confer
`about this.” Id. 3
`Starting with Samsung’s request to expunge, prior to institution, we
`authorized and Samsung filed a Motion to Withdraw (’315 IPR, Paper 10) its
`Sotera stipulation (’315 IPR, Paper 8), which we granted. Paper 18.
`Samsung, however, did not request that we expunge its Sotera stipulation
`(’315 IPR, Paper 10) and we did not indicate that the paper would be
`expunged. Paper 18. Importantly, Samsung’s email was sent after the ’315
`IPR was terminated. Id. at 15. Furthermore, we discuss Samsung’s Sotera
`stipulation in our Decision to Institute (id. at 8–10) so the record is clearer
`by maintaining the Sotera stipulation in the record. Accordingly, we deny
`Samsung’s request to expunge its Sotera stipulation (’315 IPR, Paper 8).
`We next turn to Samsung’s request to file a Sand Revolution-style
`stipulation. In its Motion for Joinder, Samsung stated the following:
`
`
`3 We remind the parties that requests for a conference call should indicate
`“whether the opposing party opposes any relief requested” and “if opposed,
`either certify that the parties have met and conferred” or “explain why such
`meet and confer did not occur.” Paper 16, 2. Also, we remind the parties that
`“all parties” should be copied on email requests (id.) and Samsung agreed to
`an understudy role in the instant proceeding. See, e.g., ’315 IPR, Paper 11, 6.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`
`To maintain consistency between the two proceedings,
`Petitioners have filed a motion to withdraw its Sotera stipulation
`(Paper 8) and replace it with the same Sand[] Revolution-style
`stipulation made by the Carriers, specifically that, if this
`proceeding is instituted, Petitioners “will not pursue invalidity
`against the asserted claims in the district court using the specific
`combination of prior art references set forth in the grounds
`presented in this Petition for purposes of establishing
`obviousness.”
`’315 IPR, Paper 11, 1.
`We treated the aforementioned statement as Samsung’s Sand
`Revolution stipulation. For example, we stated that “we consider the parties’
`discretionary denial arguments in light of the Carriers’ Sand Revolution
`stipulation without considering [Samsung’s] prior Sotera stipulation.” Paper
`18, 9–10. Because we treated Samsung’s statement in its Motion for Joinder
`(’315 IPR Paper 11, 1) as its stipulation, Samsung need not file a further
`paper. Accordingly, we deny Samsung’s request to file a Sand Revolution
`stipulation in the ’315 IPR.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Samsung’s request that we expunge its Sotera
`stipulation (IPR2024-00315, Paper 8) is denied; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Samsung’s request to file a Sand
`Revolution-style stipulation in IPR2024-00315 is denied.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`John D. Haynes
`David S. Frist
`Michael C. Deane
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`john.haynes@alston.com
`david.frist@alston.com
`michael.deane@alston.com
`
`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
`
`
`5
`
`
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
