Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: June 6, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZTE (USA) LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`Before THU A. DANG, JONI Y. CHANG,and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: June 6, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZTE (USA) LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`Before THU A. DANG, JONI Y. CHANG,and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 27, 2018, ZTE (USA) LLC (“ZTE”)filed a Petition
`
`(Paper2, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1—24,
`
`26-33, 35-42, and 44-50 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`9,516,127 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’127 patent”). ZTE also filed a Motion for
`
`Joinder (Paper3, “Mot.”) requesting that it be joined to Case IPR2018-
`
`01106 (the “Samsung IPR”) filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Samsung Electronics America,Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”). Mot.1.
`
`Subsequently, the Samsung IPR was terminated on January 11, 2019,
`
`because the parties involvedin that proceeding had settled. See Case
`
`IPR2018-01106, Paper 29.
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC (“Patent Owner’) timely filed a Preliminary
`
`Responseto the instant Petition on April 16, 2019. Paper 17 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). Patent Owneralso timely filed an Opposition (Paper 10, “Opp.”) to
`
`the Motion for Joinder, and ZTEfiled a Reply (Paper 11, “Reply’’) to the
`
`Opposition in support of its Joinder Motion.
`
`For the reasons stated below, both ZTE’s Motion for Joinder and
`
`Petition are denied, and we do notinstitute an inter partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’127 patent was involved in SEVEN
`
`Networks, LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01495 (N.D. Tex.).
`
`Pet. 75; Paper 14, 1. The parties also list other related proceedings. Pet. 75;
`
`Paper 14, 1-2.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`B. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`ZTErelies uponthe referenceslisted below (Pet. 2-3).
`
`Reference
`
`-
`
`US 2012/0185577 Al, published July 19, 2012
`
`US 2012/0023236 A1, published Jan. 26, 2012
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`“What is keeping my phone awake? Characterizing
`Pathak and Detecting No-Sleep Energy Bugs in Smartphone|1006
`Apps,” ACM (2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`US 2008/0057894 A1, published Mar. 6, 2008
`
`US 8,280,456 B2, issued Oct. 2, 2012
`
`Murvh
`"Phy
`
`“The Busy Coder’s Guide to Android
`Development,” CommonsWare, LLC (2012)
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1011
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`ZTEasserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 2)!:
`
`
`ee
`
`
`
`Giaretta, Backholm, and Pathak
`
`§ 103
`
`' The relevant post-grant review provisions of the America Invents Act
`(“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. 125 Stat. at 293,311. Theearliest possible effective filing date of the
`°127 patent is March 25, 2013. Therefore, our citations to Title 35 are to its
`post-AJA version. Section 4(c) of the AJA designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 first
`and second paragraphsas 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b), respectively, effective
`September 16, 2012. 125 Stat. at 296-297.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims Basis|References
`
`433, 36-42, 44,
`§ 103
`Backholm and Aleksic
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`
`Backholm, Aleksic, and
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Motion for Joinder
`
`The decision whetherto grant joinderis discretionary, as
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 provides, in pertinent part with emphases added:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Directorinstitutes an inter partes review,
`the Director, in his or her discretion, mayjoin as a party to that
`inter partes review any person whoproperly files a petition under
`section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response undersection 313 or the expiration of the time forfiling
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review undersection 314.
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinderis appropriate;
`
`(2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition;
`
`(3) explain what impact, if any, joinder would have onthe trial schedule for
`
`the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-
`
`00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15). As the movingparty,
`
`ZTEhasthe burdento establish that it is entitled to the requestedrelief.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`In its Motion, ZTE argues that joinder with the Samsung IPRis
`
`appropriate becauseits Petition and the SamsungIPRpetition are
`
`substantively identical, in that they contain the sameprior art grounds and
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`supporting evidence, against the same claims. Mot. 1, 5-6. ZTEalso avers
`
`that joinder should have no impact on the Samsung IPRtrial schedule. Id. at
`
`6-7. ZTE further contends that ZTE agreesto take an “understudy”role
`
`which will simplify briefing and discovery. Id. at 7-9.
`
`Patent Owner opposes, arguing that ZTE’s Motion for Joinder should
`
`not be granted because the Samsung IPR has been terminated. Opp. 1—4.
`
`Weagree with Patent Owner. Given that the Samsung IPRis no longer
`
`pending, it cannot serve as a proceeding to which this proceeding may be
`
`joined.
`
`In its Reply, ZTE arguesthat its Motion for Joinder wasfiled prior to
`
`the filing of the Joint Motion to Terminate the Samsung IPR. Reply 1-2.
`
`According to ZTE, the Board “routinely grants joinder motions despite a
`
`later-filed motion to terminate the proceeding to be joined.” Jd. at 2 n.1.
`
`Further to the aforementioned briefing, ZTE was provided an
`
`additional opportunity to present arguments in a conferencecall! with the
`
`panel on February 26, 2019. Paper 15. Duringthat call, ZTE argued that
`
`terminating the Samsung IPR before deciding ZTE’s Joinder Motion would
`
`prejudice ZTE,and that joinder with the Samsung IPR would be appropriate
`
`as its Petition submits identical grounds, arguments, and evidence presented
`
`in the Samsung IPR. Jd.at 3.
`
`However, as noted by Patent Owner(id.; Prelim. Resp. 3-9), filing a
`
`joinder motion earlier than a motion to terminate is not determinative
`
`because the Board also has previously denied joinder notwithstanding a
`
`later-filed motion to terminate. See, e.g., ZTE USA, Inc. v. Parthenon
`
`Unified Memory Architecture LLC, Case IPR2016-00664,slip op. at 3
`
`(PTAB June 8, 2016) (Paper 10); LG Elec., Inc. v. Cellular Commc’ns
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`Equip. LLC, Case IPR2016-00711, slip op. at 1-2 (PTAB May 13, 2016)
`
`(Paper 7). Based on the prior Board cases, it has been established that there
`
`is no per se rule, in that the Board does not automatically grant an
`
`earlier-filed motion for joinder. As noted above, the decision to grant
`
`joinderis discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). The Board decides joinder
`
`motions on a case-by-case basis upon consideration ofthe totality of the
`
`circumstances. See, e.g., Unified Patents Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2015-01045 (PTAB Oct. 7, 2015) (Paper 15). Moreover,
`
`although ZTEfiled its Joinder Motion seven business days prior to the Joint
`
`Motion to Terminate, ZTE does not explain whyit could not havefiled its
`
`Petition earlier, to account for the time for processing the Petition, assigning
`
`a panel, and allowing the three-month time period for filing Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response. See generally Mot.; Reply. In light of the foregoing,
`
`weare not persuaded by ZTE’s argumentthat terminating the Samsung IPR
`
`before deciding its Joinder Motion would unfairly prejudice ZTE.
`
`To the extent that ZTE meansto suggest that we should not have
`terminated the Samsung IPR in light of ZTE’s Joinder Motion, we disagree.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), we properly exercised our discretion to
`
`terminate the Samsung IPR in view ofthe parties’ request and settlement
`
`agreement. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. “There are strong public policy
`
`reasons to favor settlement between the parties to a proceeding.” Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(“Practice Guide”). “The Board expects that a proceeding will terminate
`
`after the filing of a settlement agreement, unless the Board already has
`
`decided the merits of the proceeding.” Jd.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`Furthermore, as noted in our prior Order (Paper 15, 4), the settlement
`
`agreement between Samsung and Patent Owner involved morethan the
`
`proceedings sought to be joined. Indeed, Samsung and Patent Ownerfiled a
`
`Joint Motion to Terminate in fourteen IPR proceedings, each of which was
`
`in an early stage and hadnot reacheda final written decision. See, e.g., Case
`
`IPR2018-01106, Paper 27, 1—2 (nine of the fourteen IPR proceedings had
`
`not yet been instituted, and, in the other five IPR proceedings, Patent
`Owner’s responses werenotyet filed). Moreover, the Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate indicated that the parties settled their disputes and executed the
`
`settlement agreements to terminate all IPR proceedings, as well as the
`
`related district court litigations, regarding the patents at issue. Jd. at 2-3.
`Based on the totality ofthe circumstances, we determined that granting the
`Joint Motion to Terminate the Samsung IPR was warranted, consistent with
`
`the “strong policy reasons to favor settlement betweenthe parties to a
`
`proceeding.” Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768.
`
`Given that the Samsung IPR has been terminated, there is no
`
`proceeding for ZTE to join. Hence, ZTE’s argumentthat joinder with the
`
`Samsung IPR would be appropriate is also unavailing.
`
`In addition, we are not persuaded by ZTE’s argumentthat joinder
`would have had no impact on the Samsung IPRtrial schedule. Mot. 6-7.
`Generally, we decide whetherjoinder is appropriate “after receiving a
`
`preliminary response undersection 313,” when we determine whether
`
`institution of an inter partes review is warranted. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`(“[T]he Director, in his or her discretion, may join .
`
`.
`
`. any person who
`
`2 A copy ofthe Joint Motion to Terminate the Samsung IPR has been
`provided by Petitioner as Exhibit 1014 in the instant proceeding.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a
`
`preliminary response . .. , determines warrantstheinstitution of an inter
`
`partes review under section 314.”). Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`wasfiled in the instant proceeding on April 16, 2019, more than three
`
`months after the termination of the Samsung IPR, on January 11, 2019. See
`
`Case IPR2018-01106, Paper 29. In this case, Patent Ownercorrectly noted
`
`in its Preliminary Response that the Samsung IPR had been terminated.
`
`ZTE doesnotproffer a sufficient reason why we should have delayed for
`
`more than three months to dismiss fourteen IPR proceedings pursuantto the
`
`parties’ settlement. See generally Mot.; Reply. Therefore, we are not
`
`persuaded by ZTE’s argumentthat joinder would have no impact on the
`
`SamsungIPRtrial schedule.
`
`Furthermore, we are not convinced by ZTE’s argumentthat briefing
`
`and discovery would have been simplified. Mot. 7-9. Samsung submitted
`
`confidential documents and declarations regarding the issues ofreal
`
`party-in-interest and privity in the Samsung IPR. Case IPR2018-01106,
`
`Papers 16, 17,20. With Samsung nolongerparticipating in the case, ZTE
`
`could not have assumed an “understudy” role. Mot. 8. ZTE does not
`
`explain how it would haveaccess to the confidential documents and howit
`
`would have produced witnesses for cross-examination when Samsungis no
`
`longerparticipating in the Samsung IPR. Jd. In short, ZTE fails to explain
`
`sufficiently how briefing and discovery regarding the issues of real party-in-
`
`interest and privity would have been simplified by the joinder.
`
`Lastly, ZTE arguesthat the Joint Motion to Terminate “falsely stated
`
`that the parties ‘are unaware of... any other matter before the USPTO that
`
`would be affected by the requested termination,’” and contains “statements
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`(and omissions) [that] were misleading and concealing from the ’-01106
`
`case Panel the full ramifications of granting the parties’ motion to
`
`terminate.” Reply 1-2. ZTE also contends that the Decision terminating the
`
`Samsung IPR does not mention ZTE’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 15, 3.
`
`However, ZTE admits that the Joint Motion to Terminate identifies
`
`the instant proceeding in a footnote. Reply 1-2. In fact, the Joint Motionto
`
`Terminate clearly identifies other pending proceedingsthat involve or have
`
`involved the patents at issue, including the instant proceeding, before stating
`
`that “[t]he Parties are unaware of any other pending related proceedings
`
`regarding the Patent before the Board, or any other matter before the USPTO
`
`that would be affected by the requested termination ofthis proceeding.”
`
`Case IPR2018-01106, Paper 27, 3—4.n.1. We do notfind this statement, or
`
`the absence of a specific reference to ZTE’s Motion for Joinder, to be false
`
`or misleading, as ZTE alleges. To the extent that ZTE suggests placing the
`
`identification of the instant proceeding in a footnote is concealing the
`
`existence of this proceeding, we find such an argument unavailing. Thereis
`
`no prohibition against footnotes, and we do not disregard footnotes.
`
`Moreover,it is not necessary for the panel to mention specifically ZTE’s
`
`Joinder Motion in the Decision terminating the Samsung IPR,as ZTEis not
`
`a party to the Samsung IPR.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, ZTE’s Motion for Joinder is denied.
`
`B. ZTE’s Petition is Time-Barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`Section 315(b) states the following:
`
`An inter partes review may not beinstituted if the petition
`requesting the proceedingis filed more than | yearafter the date
`on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringementofthe
`patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence
`shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection(c).
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b). “The first sentence of § 315(b)places a time limitation
`
`on the filing of a petition.” Proppant Express Inv., LLC v. Oren Techs.,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2018-00914,slip. op. at 17 (PTAB Mar. 13, 2019) (Paper 38)
`
`(precedential). The second sentence of § 315(b) “provides an exception to
`
`that time limitation for a request for joinder under § 315(c).” Id.
`
`Here, as discussed above, ZTE’s Motion for Joinder is denied. As
`
`such, we must determine whether ZTE’s Petition wasfiled timely within the
`
`1-year time periodset forth in the first sentence of § 315(b).
`
`In its Petition, ZTE asserts that it “is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claims on the
`
`below-identified grounds.” Pet. 1. ZTE identifies “ZTE Corporation and
`
`ZTE (USA),Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.” Jd. at 75. ZTE also
`
`indicates that the ’127 patent is the subject of several civil actions, including:
`(1) SEVENNetworks, LLC, v. ZTE (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-440 (E.D.
`Tex.); and (2) SEVEN Networks, LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., Case No. 3-17-cv-
`
`04600 (N.D. Tex.). Jd.; Mot. 2.
`
`Patent Ownerargues that ZTE’s Petition is time-barred because ZTE
`
`Corporation was served with a complaintalleging infringement of the ’127
`
`patent more than | yearprior to the filing of ZTE’s Petition. Opp. 5-6;
`
`Prelim. Resp. 2. We agree with Patent Owner.
`
`The Proofof Service filed by Patent Owner with its Opposition
`
`indicates that ZTE Corporation,a real party-in-interest to the instant
`
`proceeding, was served with a complaintalleging infringement of the ’127
`
`patent on July 13, 2017. Ex. 2002 (Proof of Service); Ex. 2003 (Complaint)
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`91.5, 15, 47-52. This is undisputed. See generally Reply. It is also
`
`undisputed that ZTE’s Petition has been accordedthefiling date of
`
`December 27, 2018. Paper 4, 1. Therefore, the evidence in this record
`
`showsthat ZTE’s Petition was filed more than 1 year after the date on which
`
`ZTE Corporation was served with a complaintalleging infringementof the
`
`°127 patent. Absent joinder with the Samsung IPR, ZTE’s Petition is
`
`time-barred underthefirst sentence of § 315(b).
`
`In light of the foregoing, we deny ZTE’s Petition.
`
`HI. CONCLUSION
`
`In summary, we deny ZTE’s Motion for Joinder as the proceedingto
`
`be joined has been terminated. We also deny ZTE’s Petition because it was
`
`not filed within the time limit set forth in the first sentence of § 315(b).
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`
`ORDEREDthat ZTE’s Motion for Joinder is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat ZTE’s Petition is denied, and notrial is
`
`instituted.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00460
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`James Sobieraj
`Jon Beaupré
`Yuezhong Feng
`Andrea Shoffstall
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`jsobieraj@brinksgilson.com
`jbeaupre@brinksgilson.com
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`Patrick Maloney
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`maloney@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
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
