From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Monday, November 15, 2021 10:39 AM
`Adam Seitz; Trials
`chalynda.giles@eriseip.com; andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com; Angela Oliver IPR; Enrique Iturralde;
`Paul Hart; Richard Cowell; Fred Fabricant; Jon Bowser IPR; Peter Lambrianakos; ptab@eriseip.com;
`Scott Jarratt IPR; Vincent Rubino; PTAB
`RE: PGR2021-00028 — Apple’s Request to Delay Termination in Order to File a Joinder Motion and
`Copycat Petition
`
`Counsel:  The joint motion to terminate PGR2021‐00028 is under consideration.  In the meantime, Due Date 1, extended 
`by stipulation to November 15, 2021 (see Paper 12) is extended indefinitely, to be reset after the motion to terminate is 
`decided.  The remaining due dates will be adjusted accordingly as required. 
` 
`Thank you, 
` 
`Maria King 
`Deputy Chief Clerk for Trials 
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
`703‐756‐1288 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`From: Adam Seitz <adam.seitz@eriseip.com>  
`Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 11:34 AM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: chalynda.giles@eriseip.com; andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com; Angela Oliver IPR 
`<Angela.Oliver.ipr@haynesboone.com>; Enrique Iturralde <eiturralde@fabricantllp.com>; Paul Hart 
`<paul.hart@eriseIP.com>; Richard Cowell <rcowell@fabricantllp.com>; Fred Fabricant <ffabricant@fabricantllp.com>; 
`Jon Bowser IPR <Jon.Bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com>; Peter Lambrianakos <plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com>; 
`ptab@eriseip.com; Scott Jarratt IPR <Scott.Jarratt.IPR@haynesboone.com>; Vincent Rubino 
`<vrubino@fabricantllp.com>; PTAB <PTAB@fabricantllp.com> 
`Subject: Re: PGR2021‐00028 — Apple’s Request to Delay Termination in Order to File a Joinder Motion and Copycat 
`Petition 
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on 
`links, or opening attachments. 
`
`To the Board,
`
`Apple sent its original email regarding its copycat petition and motion for joinder on October 19, yet it received
`no response until Patent Owner’s email below. Given the Board’s guidance that the parties should avoid
`substantive arguments in emails to the Board, Apple will avoid engaging the specific points in Patent Owner’s
`email. Apple does agree, however, that a conference call with the Board would be beneficial given the posture
`
`1
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2005, PGR2022-00003
`Page 001
`
`

`

`of the two proceedings. Counsel for Apple will make themselves available at the Board’s convenience for any
`such call.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`Adam Seitz
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple
`
`
`
`
`On Nov 11, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Richard Cowell <rcowell@fabricantllp.com> wrote:
`
`Honorable Board: 
`
`  
`Patent Owner RFCyber respectfully renews its request that the Board terminate PGR2021‐00028, as 
`jointly requested by Patent Owner and Petitioner Google. Apple's request to hold the ‐00028 proceeding 
`open should be denied. 
`
`  
`Patent Owner and Petitioner settled all controversies between the parties in principle on September 28, 
`2021 and moved to stay their parallel District Court litigation on that date. See RFCyber Corp. v. Google 
`LLC et al, Case No. 2:20‐cv‐00274‐JRG, Dkt. 119 (E.D. Tex.). The parties' motion to stay, and subsequently 
`granted stay of the District Court litigation, was visible to the public, including Apple, on September 28, 
`2021.  After formalizing their settlement regarding the '046 patent, Patent Owner and Petitioner jointly 
`moved to terminate PGR2021‐00028 on October 19, 2021.  
`
`  
`Based on the absence of any remaining controversy between the parties, and the imminent motion to 
`terminate, the parties to PGR2021‐00028 stipulated to extend the deadline for Patent Owner's 
`Response from October 15, 2021 to November 15, 2021. Patent Owner also did not take the deposition 
`of Petitioner's expert based on the agreement to terminate. The parties have not taken any discovery 
`and have not otherwise actively conducted the proceeding since the settlement in principle 
`on September 28, 2021.  
` 
`Apple's statement that it "had no reason to consider challenging the validity of the patent at issue" is 
`false. Apple was contacted by RFCyber's patent attorney, Dr. Joe Zheng, regarding the application that 
`issued as the '046 Patent, at least as of 2016. In any case, Apple was sued on September 7, 2021 and 
`should have known about this proceeding at least since that time. PGR20201‐00028, Paper 10. Apple 
`could have sought to have the 30‐day joinder window waived earlier in September, but failed to do 
`so. Nor did it seek to join after Patent Owner and Petitioner publicly settled all matters in controversy 
`between them in the parallel District Court action on September 28, 2021. Apple instead waited 
`until October 19, 2021 to make its request.  
`
`  
`Apple has further failed to comply with the requirement that it arrange a conference call regarding its 
`motion for joinder. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, Nov. 2019, at p. 
`76 ("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.") 
` 
`Regardless of Apple's intentions, its request is manifestly unfair as it would force the proceeding to 
`continue without affording Patent Owner adequate time to compose a Patent Owner's Response, and to 
`proceed without the deposition of Petitioner's expert or any other discovery. 
`  
`
`2
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2005, PGR2022-00003
`Page 002
`
`

`

`In sum, Apple’s dilatory conduct, as well as basic fairness and the interest of public policy in fully hearing 
`the issues of the proceeding, demand that PGR2021‐00028 be terminated. Alternatively, to the extent 
`that the Board does not terminate these proceedings, Patent Owner respectfully requests sufficient 
`time to file an opposition to Apple’s Joinder motion; sufficient time to submit a patent owner 
`preliminary response to Apple’s Petition, and a new Scheduling Order to allow Patent Owner a response 
`so that the disputed issues of PGR2021‐00028 may be fully considered. 
`
`  
`Respectfully, 
`
`  
`Richard M. Cowell 
`Reg. No. 79,143 
`Counsel for Patent Owner RFCyber Corp. 
`
`  
`<image001.png> 
`
`Richard Cowell
`Counsel 
`Fabricant LLP 
`T: 646-797-4294 
`fabricantllp.com 
`
` 
`
`  
`  
`  
`
`  
`From: Adam Seitz <adam.seitz@eriseip.com> 
`Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:14 PM 
`To: Trials 
`Cc: Chalynda Giles; Paul 
`Hart; andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com; angela.oliver.ipr@haynesboone.com; Enrique Iturralde; Fred 
`Fabricant; jon.bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com; Peter 
`Lambrianakos; ptab@eriseip.com; scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com; Vincent Rubino 
`Subject: PGR2021‐00028 — Apple’s Request to Delay Termination in Order to File a Joinder Motion and 
`Copycat Petition 
`  
` 
`To the Board: 
`  
`I write on behalf of non-party Apple Inc. regarding PGR2021-00028. 
`
`
` joint motion to terminate was filed today by Petitioner (Google) and Patent Owner in
`instituted PGR2021-00028. Non-party Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully requests that the
`Board delay its decision on the motion (or allow Apple to oppose the motion to
`terminate) so that Apple may file a copycat petition and motion for joinder by close of
`business tomorrow, October 20.  
`
` 
`On September 7, 2021, Apple was sued Patent Owner on Patent No. 10,600,046, the
`same patent subject to PGR in the current proceeding. Apple has been assessing the
`strengths of this proceeding as well as other pre- and post-institution PTAB proceedings
`challenging this, and other, patents asserted against Apple. PGR2021-00028 is the sole
`proceeding of Google’s that Apple intends to join. Apple’s internal preparation of a
`copycat petition and joinder motion was already underway when Google filed its motion
`to terminate. Because the patent challenged in PGR2021-00028 is no longer PGR-
`
` A
`
`3
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2005, PGR2022-00003
`Page 003
`
`

`

`eligible, were the Board to terminate prior to considering Apple’s motion for joinder, this
`challenge would not be raised again at the PTAB and the work invested by the Board will
`be lost. In its motion for joinder, Apple will lay out in detail why the public interest
`favors preserving this challenge and allowing the Board to complete the invalidity
`analysis it has already determined is more likely than not to render the challenged claims
`unpatentable. See Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., 947 F.2d 469, 474 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing
`Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969) (acknowledging a long-standing and broad
`public policy of eliminating invalid patents). 
`
` 
`Apple also intends to file a motion to waive the statutory 30-day joinder window. Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b-c), the Board “may waive or suspend” the 30-day window post-
`institution within which a party must move to join a proceeding upon "a showing of good
`cause or upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits would be in the interests
`of justice.” See Sony Corp. of Am. and Hewlett-Packard Co v. Network-1 Security
`Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00495, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2013) (permitting joinder
`outside the 30-day statutory window for a copycat petition that, like Apple’s planned
`joinder, did not expand the instituted grounds); Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha
`IP Bridge 1, IPR 2017-00925, Paper 12 (PTAB Jun. 9, 2017) (same). Here, Apple could
`not have moved to join PGR2021-00028 within 30 days of its institution because Apple
`was not sued until after the 30-day window had expired and, accordingly, had no reason
`to consider challenging the validity of the patent at issue.  
`  
`In sum, the interests of justice and public policy in eliminating invalid patents favor
`delaying decision on today’s motion to terminate until Apple files its copycat petition and
`motion for joinder by close of business tomorrow, October 20. Once these are filed, the
`Board can assess whether Google should be terminated as the petitioner leaving Apple to
`prosecute the proceeding as the sole petitioner. Doing so is the only means to preserve the
`work invested by the Board and to ensure the PTAB has an opportunity to render a final
`decision as to the patentability of the challenged claims.  
`
` 
`Sincerely, 
`
` 
`Adam Seitz 
`Reg. No. 52,206 
`Erise IP 
`Lead Counsel for Apple 
`
`
`
`4
`
`RFCyber's Exhibit No. 2005, PGR2022-00003
`Page 004
`
`