The Petition here and the Apple IPR petition challenge the same claims of the ’425 patent Case IPR2020-01119 Patent No. 7,821,425 on the same grounds relying on the same prior art and evidence, including a declaration identical in substance from the same expert.1 Petitioner agrees to proceed solely on the grounds, evidence, and arguments advanced, or that will be advanced, in the Apple IPR as instituted.
Because joinder will not add any new substantive issues, delay the schedule, burden deponents, or increase needless filings, any additional costs on the Patent Owner would be minimal.
Joinder will promote efficiency by consolidating issues, avoiding wasteful duplication, and preventing inconsistency Petitioner presents identical arguments and supporting evidence as the Apple IPR.
Joinder is Appropriate The Board has previously stated that it is “mindful of a policy preference for joining a party that does not present new issues.” Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs & Bioresources, Inc. IPR2014-00556, Paper No. 19 at 6 (July 9, 2014) (citing 157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right—if an inter partes review is instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an identical petition will be joined to that proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own briefs and make its own arguments.”)).
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,821,425 and joinder with Apple Inc. et al. v. Neodron Ltd.,