throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 38
`Entered: November 10, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and AVAYA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01397
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and AVAYA Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed
`a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 3, 4, and 6–14 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,131,121 C1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’121 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”).
`With the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 2, “Mot.”),
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01397
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`
`seeking to join this case with Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Straight Path IP Grp.,
`Inc., IPR2015-00196, filed by LG Electronics, Inc., Toshiba Corp., VIZIO,
`Inc., and Hulu, LLC (collectively, “LG”). Patent Owner does not oppose the
`Motion for Joinder. Paper 8, 2. In a separate decision, entered today, we
`institute an inter partes review as to the same claims on the same ground of
`unpatentability for which we instituted trial in LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight
`Path IP Grp., Inc., IPR2015-00196. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder is granted.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Petitioner filed its Petition and Motion for Joinder on June 15, 2015,
`within one month after the institution date of IPR2015-00196. Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder includes a proposed order defining the parameters of
`joinder. See Mot. 9–10.
`The Petition in this case asserts that claims 3, 4, and 6–14 of the
`’121 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`WINS1 and NetBIOS.2 Pet. 29–59. These are the same claims and the same
`ground for which we instituted trial in IPR2015-00196. LG Elecs., Inc. v.
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., Case IPR2015-00196, slip op. at 9–19 (PTAB
`May 15, 2015) (Paper 20).
`
`ANALYSIS
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29 (2011),
`permits joinder of like review proceedings. Thus, an inter partes review
`
`1 MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER VERSION 3.5, TCP/IP USER
`GUIDE, © 1994 Microsoft Corporation (Ex. 1003, “WINS”).
`2 X/OPEN PC INTERWORKING: SMB, VERSION 2, THE OPEN GROUP,
`© September 1992, X/Open Company Limited (Ex. 1004, “NetBIOS”).
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01397
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`
`may be joined with another inter partes review. The statutory provision
`governing joinder of inter partes review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`which provides:
`JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`under section 311
`that
`the Director, after receiving a
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`As the movant, Petitioner bears the burden to show that joinder is
`appropriate. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In its Motion for Joinder, Petitioner
`contends that joinder is appropriate because “it is the most expedient way to
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the related
`proceedings.” Mot. 4. In particular, Petitioner (1) represents that IPR2015-
`01397 is identical to IPR2015-00196 in all substantive aspects, including
`identical grounds, analysis, exhibits, and relies upon the same expert
`Declaration; (2) agrees to (a) incorporate its filings with LG, (b) not advance
`any arguments separate from those advanced by LG, and (c) consolidated
`discovery; (3) represents that joinder will not have any impact on the
`IPR2015-00196 schedule; and (4) asserts that there will be no prejudice to
`Patent Owner. Id. at 4–8.
`Acting on behalf of the Director, we have discretion to join
`proceedings. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). In exercising our discretion, we consider
`the impact of both substantive issues and procedural matters on the
`proceedings.
`The substantive issues in IPR2015-00196 will not be affected by
`joinder because Petitioner asserts the same ground of unpatentability, for
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01397
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`
`which trial was instituted in IPR2014-00196, presents the same arguments as
`those advanced by LG, and, therefore, our analysis would similarly institute
`review of the claims for the same ground for which trial was instituted in
`IPR2015-00196. Compare Pet. 29–59 with LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight Path
`IP Grp., Inc., Case IPR2015-00196, Paper 1, 29–59. Further, Petitioner
`submits the same Declaration of Dr. Bruce M. Maggs that Samsung
`submitted in support of its Petition. See Ex. 1002; LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight
`Path IP Grp., Inc., Case IPR2015-00196, Ex. 1002. Thus, Petitioner asserts
`that the Petition in this proceeding raises no new issues beyond those already
`before the Board in IPR2015-00196.
`Regarding procedural matters, Petitioner argues that joinder would not
`require any change to the trial schedule in IPR2015-00196. Mot. 6–7.
`Petitioner further argues that joinder would “permit Petitioners to maintain
`their ongoing interests in the Board’s review of the ʼ121 patent” in the event
`Samsung withdraws from the proceeding. Id. at 8.
`
`CONCLUSION
`Under the circumstances, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated
`that joinder will not unduly complicate or delay IPR2015-00196, and
`therefore joinder is appropriate. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is granted.
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
` ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with IPR2015-00196
`is granted;
` FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is joined with IPR2015-
`00196;
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01397
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that the ground on which a trial was instituted
`in IPR2015-00196 is unchanged and that no other grounds raised in the
`IPR2015-01397 Petition are authorized for inter partes review;
` FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order for IPR2015-00196
`(Paper 21) shall govern the joined proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that throughout the proceeding, LG and
`Petitioner will file papers as consolidated filings, except for motions that do
`not involve the other party, in accordance with the Board’s established rules
`regarding page limits. So long as they both continue to participate in the
`merged proceeding, LG and Petitioner will identify each such filing as a
`Consolidated Filing and will be responsible for completing all consolidated
`filings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will refrain from requesting or
`reserving any additional depositions or deposition time;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that LG and Petitioner will jointly conduct the
`cross-examination of any given witness produced by Patent Owner and the
`redirect of any given witness produced by LG or Petitioner within the
`timeframe normally allotted by the rules for one party. LG and Petitioner
`will not receive any separate cross-examination or redirect time;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner will conduct any cross-
`examination of any given witness jointly produced by LG or Petitioner and
`the redirect of any given witness produced by Patent Owner within the time
`frame normally allotted by the rules for one cross-examination or redirect
`examination;
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01397
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that LG and Petitioner agree not to request
`additional oral hearing time solely on the basis of the participation of
`multiple petitioners;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will assume a second-chair role
`as long as LG remains in the proceeding. Should LG cease to be in the
`proceeding, Petitioner will consolidate its activities with the remaining
`petitioners for the remainder of the proceeding consistent with the applicable
`rules and the direction of the Board;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2015-01397 is instituted, joined, and
`terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined
`proceeding shall be made in IPR2015-00196;
` FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2015-00196 shall
`be changed to reflect the joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`attached example; and
` FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`the file of IPR2015-00196.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01397
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`Jason Kipnis
`WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR
`David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Christopher O. Green
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`whelan@fr.com
`cgreen@fr.com
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Meunier
`Michael Renaud
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`mtrenaud@mintz.com
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 38
`Entered: November 10, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA CORP.,
`VIZIO, INC., HULU, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and AVAYA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-001961
`Patent 6,131,121 C1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01397 has been joined with this proceeding.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket