Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Friday, November 24, 2023 1:32 PM
`Chandran Iyer; IPR39843-0148IP1; ptabinbound@fr.com; axfptab@fr.com; jjm@fr.com; Hyun Jin In;
`jason.s.charkow@gmail.com; richard.juang@gmail.com; Ron Daignault; DoDotsLit; Adam Seitz; Kevin
`Rongish; Christina Canino; Paul Hart
`Trials
`RE: Conference Call re Stay of IPR2023-00937, -00938, and -00939, and Joinder in IPR2024-00143,
`-00144, and -00145
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Counsel,
`
`Patent Owner DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC’s request for the Board to stay its decision on instituting Apple’s IPR2023-
`00937, -00938, and -00939 in order to conduct “discovery of the facts underlying [alleged] coordinated and joint
`relationship between Apple and Samsung” is denied. We have a statutory obligation to issue a timely decision. See 35
`U.S.C. 314(b). In the case of IPR2023-00937, for example, a decision on institution is due December 18, 2023. The request
`would delay the decision in abrogation of our statutory obligation. Further explanation for denying the request will be
`provided in a forthcoming Order.
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`(571)272-7822
`
`From: Chandran Iyer <cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 6:30 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: IPR39843-0148IP1 <IPR39843-0148IP1@fr.com>; ptabinbound@fr.com; axfptab@fr.com; jjm@fr.com; Hyun Jin In
`<in@fr.com>; jason.s.charkow@gmail.com; richard.juang@gmail.com; Ron Daignault <rdaignault@daignaultiyer.com>;
`DoDotsLit <DoDotsLit@daignaultiyer.com>; Adam Seitz <adam.seitz@eriseip.com>; Kevin Rongish
`<kevin.rongish@eriseip.com>; Christina Canino <christina.canino@eriseip.com>; Paul Hart <paul.hart@eriseip.com>
`Subject: Conference Call re Stay of IPR2023-00937, -00938, and -00939, and Joinder in IPR2024-00143, -00144, and -
`00145
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on
`links, or opening attachments.
`
`Your Honors,
`
`We represent Patent Owner DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC (DoDots). DoDots sued Samsung Electronics
`Co., LTD (Samsung) and Apple Inc. (Apple) in the Western District of Texas, case nos. 6:22-cv-00535-ADA-
`DTG and WDTX-6-22-cv-00533-ADA-DTG. Samsung and Apple were served with the complaints on or about
`1
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. DoDots - IPR2024-00145
`
`

`

`June 3, 2022, and June 1, 2022, respectively. Apple and Samsung have made joint filings in the district court
`litigation and served joint preliminary invalidity contentions on February 01, 2023.
`
`Beginning on February 22, 2023 and continuing into March, Samsung subsequently filed IPR2023-00621, -
`00701, and -00756 based on prior art asserted in the joint preliminary invalidity conventions. Three months
`after Samsung’s filing, Apple then filed IPR2023-00937, -00938, and -00939, also using prior art references
`asserted from the same joint preliminary infringement contentions. In both the Samsung and Apple petitions,
`they seek to invalidate the exact same claims in the same patents. Because of their coordinated joint filings and
`actions in the district court litigation, Apple and Samsung were obviously well aware of the prior art references
`used in their joint invalidity contentions and also asserted in the IPR petitions. Further, Apple and Samsung
`filed joint claim construction briefs in the district court litigation. Indeed, it appears that Apple and Samsung
`have a joint defense agreement based on their coordinated action in the district court and in the IPRs.
`
`The Board instituted Samsung IPRs 2023-00621, -00701, and -00756. On November 13, 2023 and November
`17, 2023, Apple filed copy-cat petitions IPR 2024-0014, -00144, and -00145 more than one year after the date
`of service of complaints and a request for joinder in Samsung’s IPR2023-00621, -00701, and -00756 under 37
`C.F.R §42.122. Based on Apple’s and Samsung’s coordinated actions and joint submissions in the district court
`litigation, and now Apple’s joinder motions under 37 C.F.R §42.122, DoDots believes there are grounds for
`denying institution of Apple’s IPRs 2023-00937, -00938, and -00939, which are before the Board. Specifically,
`Apple’s IPR petitions should be dismissed under 37 C.F.R § 314(a) and the precedential decisions, Valve Corp.
`v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., (IPR2019-00064 et al., Paper 10 (May 1, 2019)) and General Plastic Industrial
`Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, (IPR2016-01357 et al., Paper 19 (September 6, 2017))
`
`In particular, DoDots submits that Apple’s and Samsung’s joint and coordinated actions in the district court and
`IPR proceedings, and now with Apple’s joinder motion, raise grounds for denying institution under Section
`314(a), and issues regarding (i) real party in interest and/or privity, (ii) the serial nature of all nine IPRs against
`the same claims in the same patents, (iii) the Board’s resources, (iv) the timeliness of Apple’s joinder motion,
`and (v) potential abuse of the IPR process.
`Accordingly, we respectfully request the Board to stay its decision on instituting Apple’s IPR 2023-00937, -
`00938, and -00939 and schedule a teleconference with the parties regarding discovery of the facts underlying
`the coordinated and joint relationship between Apple and Samsung in the district court and the IPR proceedings,
`including real party in interest and privity, and potential abuse of the IPR process, and briefing the grounds for
`denying institution under Section 314(a) in accordance with General Plastic and Valve, and the propriety and
`timeliness of Apple’s copy-cat petitions and joinder motions.
`
`After Apple filed its joinder motions, it did not request a conference call with DoDots, Samsung, and the Board
`under the Board’s Practice Guide within five business days. DoDots, therefore, submits this email so that it can
`be heard before the Board’s impending decision on institution of IPR 2023-00937, -00938, and -00939. But as
`indicated in our prior communication to the Board referenced below, should the Board order the parties to meet
`and confer before raising the above-described issues, of course, DoDots will do so. We look forward to the
`Board’s instructions as to how it would like to proceed.
`Respectfully,
`Chandran B. Iyer
`
`cc: Hyun Jin In (Samsung's Counsel, IPR2023-00621, -00701, and -00756)
`
`2
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. DoDots - IPR2024-00145
`
`

`

`Chandran B. Iyer
`Partner
`
`Daignault Iyer LLP
`202.330.1666
`cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com
`daignaultiyer.com
`
`From: Chandran Iyer <cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com>
`Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 1:32 PM
`To: Trials <trials@uspto.gov>
`Cc: IPR39843-0148IP1 <IPR39843-0148IP1@fr.com>; ptabinbound@fr.com <ptabinbound@fr.com>; axfptab@fr.com
`<axfptab@fr.com>; jjm@fr.com <jjm@fr.com>; Hyun Jin In <in@fr.com>; jason.s.charkow@gmail.com
`<jason.s.charkow@gmail.com>; richard.juang@gmail.com <richard.juang@gmail.com>; Ron Daignault
`<rdaignault@daignaultiyer.com>; DoDotsLit <DoDotsLit@daignaultiyer.com>; Adam Seitz <adam.seitz@eriseip.com>;
`Kevin Rongish <kevin.rongish@eriseip.com>; Christina Canino <christina.canino@eriseip.com>; Paul Hart
`<paul.hart@eriseip.com>
`Subject: Re: Conference Call re Contingent Joinder in IPR2024-00143, -00144, -00145
`
`To the Board,
`
`We represent DoDots Inc. in IPR 2024-0014, -00144, and -00145. In accordance with the Board’s Trial Rules
`and Practice Guide, the Board "encourages the use of conference calls to raise and resolve issues in an
`expedited manner." See Metrics, Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Case Nos. IPR2014-01041 and -01043
`(PTAB, Sept. 9, 2014) (Obermann, APJ). Moreover, the Trial Guide notes that "[a] party who files a motion for
`joinder should arrange a conference call with the panel, petitioner, and patent owner of the first proceeding
`within five business days of filing the motion" to discuss "timely manag[ing] the proceedings." Apple did not
`reach out to DoDots Inc. before sending its below request to the Board.
`
`Accordingly, we request the Board to disregard Apple’s email request and order Apple to meet and confer with
`DoDots and original petitioner Samsung about Apple’s proposed copy-cat petition and related issues raised by
`IPR 2024-0014, -00144, and -00145. The parties will contact the Board once we have conducted the meet-and-
`confer.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`Chandran B. Iyer
`Partner
`
`3
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. DoDots - IPR2024-00145
`
`

`

`Daignault Iyer LLP
`202.330.1666
`cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com
`daignaultiyer.com
`
`On Nov 17, 2023, at 5:43 PM, Paul Hart <paul.hart@eriseip.com> wrote:
`
`To the Board,
`
`I represent Petitioner Apple Inc. in IPR2024-00143, -00144, and -00145, which were recently filed and
`accompanied by contingent joinder motions ("Contingent Joinder Petitions”). The contingent joinder
`motions seek to join recently instituted IPR proceedings IPR2023-00621, -00756, and -00701 filed by
`Samsung (“Samsung IPRs”) if, and only if, the Board denies institution in the following proceedings filed
`by Apple, which have not yet reached institution: IPR2023-00937, -00938, and -00939 (“Original Apple
`IPRs”).
`
`The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide notes that “[a] party who files a motion for joinder should arrange
`a conference call with the panel, petitioner, and patent owner of the first proceeding within five
`business days of filing the motion” to discuss "timely manag[ing] the proceedings.”
`
`Because Apple’s joinder motions are contingent on the Board denying institution in the Original Apple
`IPRs, Apple proposes tabling the issue of a joinder-related conference call until institution decisions
`issue in the Original Apple IPRs. If the Board denies institution in the Original Apple IPRs, Apple will send
`an email to the Board, requesting a conference call to discuss timely managing the Samsung IPRs in the
`event Apple is joined.
`
`If the Board would instead like to schedule a call before institution decisions issue in the Original Apple
`IPRs, counsel for Apple Inc. will make itself available at the Board’s convenience.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`717 17th St.
`
`Paul Hart | Shareholder
`Erise IP, P.A.
`Suite 1400
`Denver, CO 80202
`(main) 913-777-5600
`(direct) 720-689-5441
`paul.hart@eriseip.com
`(fax) 913-777-5601
`www.eriseip.com
`
`This transmission, and any attached files, may contain information from the law firm of Daignault Iyer LLP which is
`confidential and/or legally privileged. Such information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom
`this transmission is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
`copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmitted information is strictly
`prohibited, that copies of this transmission and any attached files should be deleted from your disk directories
`4
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. DoDots - IPR2024-00145
`
`

`

`immediately, and that any printed copies of this transmission or attached files should be returned to this firm. If you
`have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone or e-mail immediately, and we will arrange for the
`return to Daignault Iyer LLP of any printed copies.
`
`5
`
`DoDots Exhibit 2001
`Apple v. DoDots - IPR2024-00145
`
`