UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2024-01334
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954
`_________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 325(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b)
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2024-00233
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2024-01334
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954
`_________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 325(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b)
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2024-00233
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ..................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .................................................... 2
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 2
`A.
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................. 2
`B.
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER IS TIMELY ...................................... 3
`C.
`EACH FACTOR WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF JOINDER ........................................ 3
`1.
`Joinder is Appropriate ................................................................ 3
`2.
`Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability .......... 4
`3.
`Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the
`Google IPR Trial Schedule .......................................................... 4
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery .......................... 5
`4.
`IV. GENERAL PLASTIC IS INAPPLICABLE ................................................. 7
`V.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder,
`
`together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 (“’954
`
`Patent”) (IPR2024-01334 “the 1334 Petition”) filed contemporaneously herewith.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner requests
`
`institution of an inter partes review and joinder with the inter partes review in
`
`Google LLC v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-00233 (“the Google IPR”).1 The 1334
`
`Petition is also narrowly tailored to the same claims, prior art, and grounds for
`
`unpatentability that are the subject of the Google IPR. In addition, Petitioner is
`
`willing to streamline discovery and briefing. Petitioner understands that Google
`
`does not oppose Petitioner’s request for joinder.
`
`Petitioner submits that joinder is appropriate because it will not unduly burden
`
`or prejudice the parties to the Google IPR while efficiently resolving the question of
`
`the ’954 Patent’s validity in a single proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Microsoft Corporation has filed a Conditional Motion for Joinder of the Google
`
`IPR. See Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-01327, Paper 2.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`On January 17, 2024, Google LLC filed a petition for inter partes
`1.
`
`review (IPR2024-00233) requesting cancellation of claims 1-7, 10, 12-19, and 22-27
`
`of the ʼ954 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`On July 24, 2024, the Board instituted inter partes review on all
`
`challenged claims and grounds. IPR2024-00233, Paper 10 (Jul. 24, 2024).
`
`3.
`
`Contemporaneously with this Motion, Petitioner filed its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review requesting cancellation of claims 1-7, 10, 12-19, and 22-27 of the
`
`ʼ954 Patent, which is substantively identical to the Google IPR.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Legal Standard
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of the Board
`
`instituting an original inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In deciding
`
`whether to exercise its discretion and permit joinder, the Board considers factors,
`
`including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the new petition
`
`presents any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what impact, if any, joinder would
`
`have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified. Kyocera Corporation v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper
`
`15 at 4 (April 24, 2013).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review dated July 24, 2024, (Paper 10) of
`
`the Google IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`C.
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder
`
`here. Specifically, the 1334 Petition does not present any new grounds of
`
`unpatentability; rather it is substantively identical to the Google Petition. Further,
`
`joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are
`
`substantively identical and Petitioner will accept an “understudy” role. See Sony
`
`Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting IPR
`
`Review, Motion for Joinder, Paper 11 at 6; (granting IPR where petitioners requested
`
`an “understudy” role); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, Paper 4 at 5-7.
`
`Lastly, the briefing and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single
`
`proceeding.
`
`1.
`Joinder is Appropriate
`Joinder with the Google IPR is appropriate because the 1334 Petition involves
`
`the same patent, challenges the same claims, relies on the same expert declaration,
`
`and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the
`
`Google Petition. Id. The 1334 Petition is substantively identical to the Google
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition, containing only minor differences related to only other issues associated
`
`with a different party filing the petition. The 1334 Petition presents no changes to
`
`the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments related to patentability presented in the
`
`Google Petition. Because these proceedings are substantively identical, good cause
`
`exists for joining this proceeding with the Google IPR so that the Board can
`
`efficiently resolve all grounds in both the 1334 Petition and Google Petition in a single
`
`proceeding. Id.
`
`2.
`Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`The 1334 Petition presents the same grounds of unpatentability as the Google
`
`Petition.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the
`Google IPR Trial Schedule
`Because the 1334 Petition is substantively identical to the Google Petition,
`
`with the same grounds challenging the same claims as instituted by the Board, there
`
`are no new substantive issues for Patent Owner to address. Due to the same issues
`
`being presented in the 1334 Petition and the Google Petition, Patent Owner will not
`
`be required to present any additional responses or arguments. See IPR2015-01353,
`
`Decision Instituting IPR, Motion for Joinder, Paper 11 at 6 (granting IPR and motion
`
`for joinder where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery
`
`from Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR].”); see also
`
`IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, Paper 4 at 5-7.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner Response will also not be negatively impacted because the
`
`issues presented in the Google Petition are identical to the issues presented in the
`
`1334 Petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional analysis
`
`or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the Google
`
`Petition. Also, because the 1334 Petition relies on the same expert and an identical
`
`declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed joined proceeding.
`
`Joinder of this proceeding with the Google IPR does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule in any meaningful way. Further, even if a small
`
`adjustment of the trial schedule was necessary, this is already provided for in the rules
`
`and is a routine undertaking by parties in IPR proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`Thus, a slight adjustment in the trial schedule, should one be needed, is not enough
`
`of a reason to deny joining the present 1334 Petition with the Google IPR.
`
`4.
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`The Google Petition and 1334 Petition present substantively identical grounds
`
`of rejection, including the same art combinations against the same claims.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, as described
`
`by the Board:
`
`“(a) all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be consolidated
`with [the filings of the petitioner in the Google IPR], unless a filing
`solely concerns issues that do not involve [the petitioner in the Google
`IPR]; (b) [Petitioner] shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`not already instituted by the Board in the [Google] IPR, or introduce
`any argument or discovery not already introduced by [the petitioner in
`the Google IPR]; (c) [Petitioner] shall be bound by any agreement
`between [Patent Owner] and [the petitioner in the Google IPR]
`concerning discovery and/or depositions; and (d) [Petitioner] at
`deposition shall not receive any direct, cross-examination or redirect
`time beyond that permitted for [the petitioner in the Google IPR] alone
`under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between [Patent
`Owner] and [the petitioner in the Google IPR].”
`
`Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AG et al., IPR2014-00550, Paper 38
`
`at 5 (Apr. 10, 2015) (emphasis in original). Petitioner will assume the primary role
`
`only if Google ceases to participate in the Google IPR.
`
`By Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and Petitioner can
`
`comply with the current trial schedule and avoid any duplicative efforts by the Board
`
`or the Patent Owner. These steps will minimize any potential complications or delay
`
`that potentially may result by joinder. See IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting IPR,
`
`Paper 11 at 6-7 (granting IPR and motion for joinder 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 petitioners
`
`agreed to an “understudy” role.); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, Paper
`
`4 at 6-7.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Accordingly, joinder should be permitted. See IPR2015-01353, Decision
`
`Instituting IPR Review, Motion for Joinder, Paper 11 at 5-6 (granting institution of
`
`IPR and 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.”); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, Paper 4 at 4-
`
`5.
`
`IV. GENERAL PLASTIC IS INAPPLICABLE
`In General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, the Board
`
`“recognize[d] the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on
`
`patents.” IPR2016-01357, slip op. 16–17 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19)
`
`(precedential). In General Plastic, the Board set forth a series of factors that may
`
`be analyzed for follow-on petitions to help conserve the finite resources of the Board.
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that application of the General Plastic analysis is
`
`inapplicable here. In the current motion, Petitioner merely seeks to join Google’s
`
`petition and does not present any new grounds. As such, Petitioner respectfully
`
`submits that General Plastic does not apply in this circumstance because Petitioner
`
`would be taking an understudy role and the Board’s finite resources would not be
`
`impacted. Moreover, a joinder petition in these circumstances is not the type of
`
`serial petition to which General Plastic applies, especially as Petitioner has not
`
`previously filed an IPR against the ’954 Patent. The PTAB has previously stated that
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`a joinder petition “effectively neutralizes” a General Plastic analysis. See Apple Inc.
`
`v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-00580, Paper 13 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 21, 2018)
`
`(instituting a joinder petition where joinder petitioner previously filed a non-
`
`instituted IPR, stating joinder petitioner’s joinder motion agreeing to a passive
`
`understudy role “effectively neutraliz[es] the General Plastic factors”); see also
`
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 30,
`
`2018) (instituting a joinder petition where joinder petition previously filed a non-
`
`instituted IPR, stating the joinder motion “effectively obviates any concerns of serial
`
`harassment and unnecessary expenditure of resources”). Furthermore, the Board did
`
`not find, nor did the Patent Owner even argue, that the General Plastic factors
`
`warranted exercising the Board’s discretion to deny the instituted challenges from
`
`the Google IPR that Petitioner now seeks to join. IPR2024-00233, Paper 6 at 13-22;
`
`IPR2024-00233, Paper 10 at 26-37.
`
`In the event the Board does analyze the General Plastic factors, those factors
`
`heavily weigh in favor of instituting the present IPR. General Plastic at 16.
`
`Regarding the first factor, Petitioner has not previously filed a petition against
`
`the ’954 Patent. This factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`The second factor is whether at the time of filing the first petition the petitioner
`
`knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the second petition. This
`
`factor is neutral, if not inapplicable, in the General Plastic analysis. Here, Google’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`petition and 1334 Petition share the same prior art because the 1334 Petition is a
`
`“copycat” of Google’s petition. Because Petitioner is merely seeking to join in an
`
`understudy role, the factor is neutral, at best, in determining whether to institute.
`
`The third factor is whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first
`
`petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first
`
`petition. Because this is a Motion for Joinder requesting an understudy role,
`
`Petitioner is submitting a substantively identical petition and has not added to, or
`
`changed, any of the substantive arguments from the Google petition. Moreover,
`
`because the present Petition is submitted as a joinder and Petitioner will serve an
`
`understudy role, the Petition is not an attempt to harass the Patent Owner or
`
`otherwise engage in serial, tactical filings. Thus, this factor weighs against denial of
`
`joinder/institution.
`
`The fourth factor is the length of time elapsed between the time the petitioner
`
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and filing of the second
`
`petition, and the fifth factor is whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation
`
`for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same
`
`claims of the same patent. In the context of a joinder motion where Petitioner will
`
`be taking an understudy role, these factors are inapplicable.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`The sixth factor is the finite resources of the Board. Allowing Petitioner’s
`
`joinder motion where it will serve in an understudy role will not impact the Board’s
`
`resources beyond those resources the Board dedicates to the instant joinder motion.
`
`The seventh factor is the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a
`
`final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices
`
`institution of review. As noted above, joining Petitioner should not impact the
`
`schedule. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`An eighth factor identified by the Board in Shenzhen is the extent to which
`
`the petitioner and any prior petitioner(s) were similarly situated defendants or
`
`otherwise realized a similar-in-time hazard regarding the challenged patent.
`
`Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corp., IPR2018-00898,
`
`Paper 9 at 7, 13-14 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018) (noting “the purpose of proposed Factor 8
`
`is to discourage tactical filing of petitions over time by parties that faced the same
`
`threat at the same time” such that earlier petitions are filed as “test case(s)” to gain
`
`“tactical advantage”). Petitioner is not similarly situated as the petitioner for the
`
`Google IPR. The petitioner for the Google IPR was sued on the ’954 Patent in a case
`
`filed on May 2, 2023. The Petitioner here was sued on the ’954 Patent over ten
`
`months later, in a case filed on March 18, 2024. Furthermore, because the 1334
`
`Petition does not introduce any new grounds of unpatentability and will effectively
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`merge into a single proceeding with Google’s IPR, no tactical advantage is gained
`
`here.
`
`Thus, none of the General Plastic factors weighs against institution and
`
`joinder in this situation.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Based on the factors discussed above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant the 1334 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954
`
`and then grant joinder with the Google IPR2024-00233 proceeding.
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`BY: /Philip W. Woo/
`Philip W. Woo
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,880
`Duane Morris LLP
`260 Homer Avenue #202
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the Motion for
`
`Joinder has been served via Federal Express, postage prepaid, to Patent Owner, by
`
`serving the correspondence address of record for the ’954 Patent:
`
`89194 - Patent Law Works/Proxense
`Greg Sueoka
`4516 South 700 East, Suite 290
`Salt Lake City, UT
`UNITED STATES
`
`and, by email, upon counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the litigation before
`
`the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas:
`
`Brian D. Melton
`Susman Godfrey, LLP
`1000 Louisiana St.
`Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Email: bmelton@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`
`
`BY: /Philip W. Woo/
`Philip W. Woo, Reg. No. 39,880
`Duane Morris LLP
`260 Homer Avenue #202
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`P: (650) 847 4145
`F: (650) 644 0150
`pwwoo@duanemorris.com
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
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
