EN ’Tfifli‘, UNIT E11) STATES I?” ATENT AND ”I”‘i{4&1:3EM,,A.RKOFFICE
`.‘ mm ”MW- "mam.Fumwiluxwvmwwhxwgv
`
`BEFORE ’I‘HE PATENT ’HHAL AND APPEAIO BOARD
`vwWMdr»M'-)‘Wwdmm‘flflmmwmmtwmnnMIN»
`
`ESfikMSUNfl 18191-3{YYRGNICf5? {lily 37137133.,
`
`Patiti 0:16:21;
`
`Vg
`
`ALRENIDI S .ARQLW
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case NO. I’PRZCH 44)} 14:2
`
`Patent NOV 7,917,843
`
`SAMSUNG’S REPLY TO ARIEN’IWS OPPOSITION T0 MOTION
`
`FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315((3) AND
`37 GER. §§ 42.22 AND 42.12203)
`
`
`.‘ mm ”MW- "mam.Fumwiluxwvmwwhxwgv
`
`BEFORE ’I‘HE PATENT ’HHAL AND APPEAIO BOARD
`vwWMdr»M'-)‘Wwdmm‘flflmmwmmtwmnnMIN»
`
`ESfikMSUNfl 18191-3{YYRGNICf5? {lily 37137133.,
`
`Patiti 0:16:21;
`
`Vg
`
`ALRENIDI S .ARQLW
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case NO. I’PRZCH 44)} 14:2
`
`Patent NOV 7,917,843
`
`SAMSUNG’S REPLY TO ARIEN’IWS OPPOSITION T0 MOTION
`
`FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315((3) AND
`37 GER. §§ 42.22 AND 42.12203)
`
`
`
`{11.11.11.211 1111:; 1.1:11111111311:
`
`,«11'1‘311'11
`
`1111312 {11 1’1 111 1112
`
`The Board ant:.l,‘iorized, Aremii to ti 1:: ”an opposition to the rnotirm forjoinder,
`
`not to exceed the page litnit ol'ti‘ie motion for torrid " 1"aper e p.’.3(ernphasis
`
`added}. nominee .fki‘eraii :11.12:11:21.amiaceerifi‘fpan: iiniit 1.1112211111111111:
`
`11::
`
`1'1’1111711111‘}
`
`11::‘1otnde h‘y iffistii paces. theBernard ahrmtlisti‘ii<:etthe non13013111131121111 Opposition,
`
`r:‘ at a nnnnnn:n, disreaar‘d the 1.111 fan: page
`
`Arendi argues: that “11:13! virtue :::1f"i:.si:‘1g 1'11“. Paul Clark instead ofDr. Daniel
`
`A. Menasce For its export, the Samanng IPR. includes evidence that is outside of the
`
`scope oi:it'he App::1 11313" ()ppoaition p.13 However, the substantive issues in
`
`113112.11 1.411.111.2118 Wt'fmid not be unduly complicated because joi‘nder would not
`
`introduce any new claims or grounds of" unpatentability. Moreover, neither 35
`
`1.1.31.1 § 31. 1 nor § 315(c) requires a petition in a joinder situation to be limited to
`
`identical issues, much less identical evidence. See, e.g., 11911201300282 Paper 15,
`
`p. 4 (joinder granted Where second petition. introduced two new pieces of prior art
`
`evidence (emphasis added.)). The proper question is the impact of any additional
`
`issues or evidence. The impact of Dr. Clark’s declaration on the existing proceeding is
`
`demonstrably minimal for at least four reasons.
`
`First, Arendi’s own admissions and actions show that the impact of Dr.
`
`Clark’s declaration at most is likely nothing more than a single day deposition of Dr.
`
`Clark, and can perhaps be avoided altogether based on the declaration’s substantive
`
`similarity to that of Dr. Menascé. Arendi effectively concedes this point in asserting
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`iiioeitet No iiiiffiaditrfiitfi i
`
`ii iii}?
`
`ii’fitfifi it 51%} i l 43
`
`in its Opposition in ll’RQOlriwili MB and 113122014471 M4 that [ha {Slaritiis deciarationa
`a.
`in those proceedings are “redundant with the declaration olilbr, Menasee.‘ .E’aper 7’,
`
`E3 5 in each proneedingfi.
`
`5
`'5'
`I'm
`the aileget‘i “"redarniantM nature oiifiiiirr {,iiarh E»: rieeiarationa
`
`in the other two proceedings will eorreapondingly minimize any impact; on Arendi in
`
`the present proceeding, and confirms there is sufficient time to complete the
`
`deposition ot‘Dr. Clark, in a single day, as with Dr. Menascer See Oppositiom p.
`
`l 1;
`
`Paper ’7, p, 5 in IPRZO'i 4-0l 143 and Paper 7 , p. 5 in li’RZOl 44) l 144.
`
`Second, contrary to Arendi’s assertion on page ll), no additional testimony
`
`from Arendiis witnesses would be required Samsong has agreed to a process with
`
`the petitioners (“Apple/Google”) by which Apple/(Boogie will ask questions first in
`
`any deposition of Arendi’s expert(s), and Samsung would. ask. questions only if any
`
`time remained within the allotted timeframe. Thus, there will be very little if any
`
`additional testimony required.
`
`Thirdt Arendi cannot be prejudiced by evidence it contends “falls outside the
`
`scope ot‘z’nrer panes review.” Opposition, p. 5. Arendi contends that “Ground I
`
`relies upon the purported personal knowledge of Samsung’s expert, Dr. Paul Clark.”
`
`[at If Arendi’s contention is correct, then they have no need to depose Dr. Clark on
`
`the alleged impermissible testimony, and no prejudice arises. Arendi has a full and
`
`fair opportunity to present its arguments about any alleged improper ground in the
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, a proposition with which Arendi apparently
`
`-2».
`
`
`
`11111311131; N131: 11131141111111" -’1:,1f§31377
`
`1111111111} 11:11-13: 11”"
`
`agrees given its assertion that 3111111111 response 1111111111 1.111111 1:11 August 1 i, .2014
`
`{)pposition: pp. 3-3.,
`
`717111115, 1111:: 11111211111011, (1 1“ the ”purported persona} 11.110111111111111” of
`
`1.31: {7111111 111.;1; 11111111 11141111111111“ 11111111111111.111- but 111 111113-1111, gy.111111~ai1111 has
`
`11131110111111titted 21 11111111111111 «telhood oi pun/11111111:
`
`[111
`
`fiburz‘h, Sari-13,111,111, has agreed to :1. prowess with. Apple/(1111111111111 tile
`
`consolidated papers 1111: which Appie/(ioogle will have primaiy responsibility. With
`
`the exeepti on of,” motions which, do not involve Apple/Google, Sainsung will limit:
`
`individual filings solely to points 01111311131111111.411 with Apple/(110111911:11111111111:
`
`additional “points not pertinent to thei1%1111s in Apptale/(1001;119:1111 lines it any And
`
`any such filings will. not exceed, seven pages. Thus, there will be very little if any
`
`additional briefing papers for Arendi or the PTAB to review and act upon.
`
`Finally, Arendi‘s argument about‘exhibit numbering” is misplaced at best In
`
`the cited Art/11px case (IPRZO l. 3-00632; Opposition, pp. 3, 12—13,), the petitions in the
`
`two proceedings were filed by the same‘petitioner, which is Clearly not the case here.
`
`Sa‘msung respectfully submits that should the Board request that its exhibits be
`
`renumbered to match those in the Apple/Google proceedings, it will do so.
`
`Joinder to IPR20‘14—00208 will introduce no new grounds of unpatentability,
`
`and will not unduly complicate or delay that proceeding. Therefore, joinder is
`
`appropriate, and Samsung requests that its Motion be granted and trial instituted.
`
`
`
`fiififlkfifi Na), fiEEQflQflG? 7% Pg“)?
`
`19322131} 4%? E E, 4‘13,
`
`I‘ffzmm: Augugt 1 L 22014
`
`Reazpezatfixlly Subfl‘lil‘md,
`
`
` 33y ,,
`
`A.ndre%cfi%w¥§$§i_smr
`.Registmticn No: 36,253
`Gregory S. Discher
`Regimafion No, 412,488
`(QTOVIN(}TC)N & BURLINC} LLP
`
`{201 Pennsylvania Avenum NW
`Washington, DC; 200045340]
`(202) 66246000
`Attomey‘s; for Petitioner
`
`
`
`lilihfitiléot No {3.3244913t'lfli 45%.}?
`
`iFREE?) '2. 41% {ii 342*,
`
`(IERT‘I'FICSATE OF SlE'RVICIi;
`
`P‘ttmttttfl‘l to 37 (HAIR § 423,6, I hereby cortiiy tl'tttt on this; 1 lth Eloy ofAugusst 201,4,
`
`tho othr‘oggoiz‘igg fitmmuogya Rooly to Amarillo C);jt’)t3:%liii0t3 to titanium to? Joimlor “out;
`
`355 11.813, <§ fl l 5(0) and 37 CLERK. gag; 42.22". and 4.2122(b) wag; Sort/oat by oloctrouio
`
`I‘I‘tall by agreement of the partioa on the liiillo‘wiug ot'aunsol ofmuorcl lot“ patent: ownon
`
`Robert M. Atthor
`
`Bruce I). Sunstoin
`
`John J. Stickevers
`
`Dorothy Wu
`Sunstcin Kano. Murphy & Timbers I‘JLP
`mshor@suustoiulawoom
`bsunstei..n@sunsteinlaw.Com
`jsticl<ovor5@sunsteinlaw.com
`dwu@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`A courtesy copy was provided to Counsel for Petitioners in 0311201400208:
`
`David L. Fehrman
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`
`dihhrman@motb.com
`Mehran Arjomand
`.manjomandCchofooom
`Morrison & Foorster LLP
`707 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 6000
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`smith@tumerboyd.c0m
`Zhuanjia Gu
`gu@tumerbody.com
`Turner Boyd LLP
`2570 W. El Camino Real, Suite 380
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`
`Date: August 1 l, 20l4
`
`
`“E
`M”
`W
`\
`4Wmvmm
`
`
`56gb ”i8? ischer, Esq.
`
`Registration No: 42,488
`
`
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
