Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00390
`Patent 7,742,759 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,742,759
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313, 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00390
`Patent 7,742,759 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,742,759
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313, 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. THE PETITION FAILS TO IDENTIFY ALL REAL PARTIES-IN-
`INTEREST AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE AND RULE. ....................... 6
`Legal Background. .............................................................................. 7
`1.
`Routinely Considered Real Parties-In-Interest. ......................... 8
`2.
`Interest. ..................................................................................... 10
`3.
`Real Parties-In-Interest. ........................................................... 11
`B. Verizon Is A Real Party-In-Interest. ............................................... 13
`1.
`Verizon Fully Controls Verizon Wireless. .............................. 13
`The Verizon Entities Blur Their Corporate Lines. .................. 20
`2.
`3.
`Through Shared Counsel To Accomplish That Goal. ............. 25
`C. AT&T And AT&T Services Are Real Parties-In-Interest. ........... 30
`1.
`AT&T Fully Controls Its Subsidiary AT&T Mobility. ........... 30
`2.
`The AT&T Entities Blur Their Corporate Lines. .................... 34
`3.
`Through Shared Counsel To Accomplish That Goal. ............. 37
`
`Parent Corporations That Control Their Subsidiaries Are
`
`Parent Corporations That Blur Corporate Lines With Their
`Subsidiaries Are Routinely Considered Real Parties-In-
`
`Parent Corporations That Have An Aligned Interest In
`Invalidating A Patent, Take Unified Actions In Litigation,
`And/Or Share Common Counsel Are Routinely Considered
`
`Verizon And Verizon Wireless Have Identical Interests In
`Invalidating The Patents And Have Worked In Concert
`
`AT&T And AT&T Mobility Have Identical Interests In
`Invalidating The Patents And Have Worked In Concert
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Even If The Petition Were Corrected To Identify Omitted Real
`
`Parties-In-Interest, Review Cannot Be Instituted. ......................... 40
`III. THE SIX REQUESTED GROUNDS PETITIONERS PROPOSE ARE
`REDUNDANT AND SHOULD NOT ALL BE INSTITUTED. .............. 41
`Grounds. ............................................................................................. 42
`The Petition’s Six Requested Grounds Are Redundant. ............... 44
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 47
`
`The Board Routinely Rejects Redundant Or Duplicative
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`COURT DECISIONS
`Gonzales v. Banco Cent. Corp.,
`27 F.3d 751 (1st Cir. 1994) ................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
`
`Askeladden LLC v. McGhie,
`IPR2015-00122, Paper 30 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2015)
`(per Chang, APJ) ........................................................................................... passim
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015)
`(per Boucher, APJ)........................................................................................ passim
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC,
`IPR2014-00535 to -00537, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)
`(per Boucher, APJ)......................................................................................... 42, 45
`Commerce Bancshares, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00801, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2014)
`(per Bisk, APJ) ...................................................................................................... 10
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC,
`IPR2014-00863, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014)
`(per Turner, APJ) .................................................................................................. 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01422, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2015)
`(per Pollock, APJ). ........................................................................................ passim
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00987, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)
`(per Clements, APJ) .............................................................................................. 43
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00987, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2015)
`(per Clements, APJ) .............................................................................................. 43
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00065, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)
`(per Turner, APJ) .................................................................................................. 43
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)
`(per Lee, APJ) .................................................................................... 42, 43, 45, 46
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00075, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B., May 3, 2013)
`(per Kim, APJ) ...................................................................................................... 47
`Paramount Home Entm’t Inc. v. Nissim Corp.,
`IPR2014-00961, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2014)
`(per Scanlon, APJ). ....................................................................................... passim
`Sony Computer Ent’t Am. LLC v. Game Controller Tech. LLC,
`IPR2013-00634, Paper 31 at 7-8 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2015)
`(per Meyer, APJ)……………………………………………………………….10
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC,
`IPR2013-00421, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014)
`(per Kim, APJ) ......................................................................................... 43, 46, 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-01010, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014)
`(per Grossman, APJ) ............................................................................................. 10
`Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp.,
`IPR2014-01329, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015)
`(per Easthom, APJ) ....................................................................................... passim
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. March 20, 2014)
`(per Quinn, APJ) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ................................................................................................. 40, 41
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ................................................................................................ 41, 42
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ..................................................................................................... 33
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide; Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (August 14, 2012)
`(to be codified at C.F.R. pt. 42) ..........................................................................7, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Rules Of Practice For Trials Before PTAB & Judicial Review Of PTAB Decisions;
`Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`(codified at C.F.R. tit. 37, ch. 1) ............................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Verizon Communications, Inc., SEC Filing, Prospectus, Am.
`3 to Form S-4, dated December 10, 2013 - Excerpted
`Cellco Partnership, SEC Filing, Form S-4, dated July 10,
`2002 - Excerpted
`Cellco Partnership FCC Filing, Ownership Disclosure Filing
`with Attachment, dated July 22, 2010
`Verizon Communications, Inc., SEC Filing, Form 10-K,
`dated February 27, 2014 - Excerpted
`Verizon Communications, Inc., SEC Filing, Form 10-K,
`dated February 23, 2015 - Excerpted
`Verizon Communications, Inc., SEC Filing, Form 10-Q,
`dated October 28, 2014 - Excerpted
`Cellco Partnership, SEC Filing, Form 8-K, dated October 18,
`2010
`Verizon Communications, Inc., Proxy Statement, dated
`March 17, 2014 - Excerpted
`Cellco Partnership, SEC Filing, Form S-4, dated October 13,
`2009 - Excerpted
`Verizon Communications, Inc., Company History &
`Timeline, available at www.verizon.com as of March 22,
`2015
`Verizon Communications, Inc., SEC Filing, Form 8-K, dated
`February 19, 2015
`Nicole Arce, John Stratton To Replace Daniel Mead as CEO
`After Verizon Shakeup, Tech Times (February 17, 2015),
`available at
`http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33866/20150219/john-
`stratton-to-replace-daniel-mead-as-ceo-after-verizon-
`shakeup.htm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`Exhibit 2018
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Roger Cheng, Verizon names John Stratton new head of
`wireless, wireline, CNET (February 18, 2015), available at
`http://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-names-john-stratton-
`new-head-of-wireless-wireline/
`Damon Poeter, Verizon Shakeup Puts John Stratton in
`Charge of Wireless Biz, PCMag (February 18, 2015),
`available at
`http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2476999,00.asp
`Kevin Fitchard, Verizon’s Dan Mead to retire; John Stratton
`is new wireless chief, Gigaom (February 18, 2015), available
`at https://gigaom.com/2015/02/18/verizons-dan-mead-to-
`retire-john-stratton-is-new-wireless-chief/
`
`Transcript of Edward Ruth Deposition from Solocron Media,
`LLC v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), March
`3, 2015 - de-designated by Verizon - Excerpted
`Transcript of Jerry Kupsh Deposition from Solocron Media,
`LLC v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.),
`February 27, 2015 - de-designated by Verizon - Excerpted
`Transcript of Joseph Palmieri Deposition from Solocron
`Media, LLC v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.),
`March 19, 2015 - de-designated by Verizon - Excerpted
`Document Production Cover Letter from Verizon’s counsel
`to Patent Owner’s litigation counsel, November 14, 2014
`
`Docket Report from Solocron Media, LLC v. Verizon, No.
`2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), March 26, 2015 - Excerpted
`AT&T Power of Attorney, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Solocron
`Media, LLC, IPR2015-00390, Paper 2 (December 6, 2014)
`
`E-mail from Verizon’s counsel to Patent Owner’s litigation
`counsel regarding mediation, March 22, 2015
`Amended Complaint filed in Solocron Media, LLC v.
`Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), December 20,
`2013
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`Exhibit 2032
`Exhibit 2033
`
`Exhibit 2034
`
`Exhibit 2035
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer to Amended Complaint filed in Solocron Media,
`LLC v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.),
`February 10, 2014 - Excerpted
`Demand for Jury Trial filed in Solocron Media, LLC v.
`Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), February 10,
`2014
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions with Appendices A-B
`filed in Solocron Media, LLC v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.), June 24, 2014
`Defendants’ Motion to Sever with Proposed Order filed in
`Solocron Media, LLC v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.), December 17, 2014
`AT&T Inc., SEC Filing, Form 10-K, dated February 21,
`2014 - Excerpted
`AT&T Inc., SEC Filing, Form 8-K, dated December 29,
`2006
`Randall L. Stephenson: Executive Profile & Biography
`Businessweek, Bloomberg, March 23, 2015, available at
`http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.as
`p?personId=1162489&ticker=T
`Brad Molen, Glenn Lurie named CEO of AT&T Mobility as
`it merges with Business group, Engadget (August 26, 2014),
`available at
`http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/26/attmobilityceoglennlu
`rie/
`AT&T Inc. Proxy Statement, March 10, 2015 - Excerpted
`LinkedIn profile of Tom Restaino, March 26, 2015, available
`at https://www.linkedin.com/pub/tomrestaino/
`17/35b/1b7
`Letter from Ann Sagerson of AT&T Services to Attorney
`General Joseph Foster, October 1, 2014
`Cellco Partnership, SEC Filing, Form 8-K, dated September
`24, 2010
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2036
`
`Exhibit 2037
`
`Exhibit 2038
`
`Exhibit 2039
`
`Exhibit 2040
`
`Exhibit 2041
`
`Exhibit 2042
`
`Exhibit 2043
`
`Exhibit 2044
`
`Exhibit 2045
`
`Letter from Wayne Watts of AT&T Inc. to SEC Secretary
`Elizabeth M. Murphy, January 19, 2010
`FCC Universal Licensing System Application filed by
`AT&T Mobility LLC, July 30, 2007
`Letter from Jay Perez of AT&T Mobility to the Virginia
`Beach Department of Planning, February 11, 2008
`Attorney Sign-in Sheet filed in Solocron Media, LLC v.
`Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), January 9, 2015
`
`Transcript of Alissa Van Volkom Deposition from Solocron
`Media, LLC v. Cellco Partnership, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.), March 18, 2015 - de-designated by Verizon -
`Excerpted
`LinkedIn Profile of Jack Minnear, March 28, 2015, available
`at https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jack-minnear/5/ba1/774
`
`New York State Bar profile for Norman Ernest Boswell
`Minnear, February 9, 2015, available at
`http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attor
`neyId=330006823
`Super Lawyers profile for N.E.B. (“Jack”) Minnear,
`February 9, 2015, available at
`http://www.superlawyers.com/newjersey/lawyer/NEBJackM
`innear/1cfe435681f04e218b204459db5db590.
`html
`LinkedIn profile of Mike Holden, March 28, 2015, available
`at https://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-holden/13/20/21a
`
`Martindale profile of Michael J. Holden, February 9, 2015,
`available at
`http://www.martindale.com/MichaelJHolden/489499lawyer.
`htm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`Exhibit 2047
`
`Exhibit 2048
`
`Exhibit 2049
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Exhibit 2051
`
`Exhibit 2052
`
`Exhibit 2053
`
`New York State Bar profile for Michael James Holden,
`February 9, 2015, available at
`http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attor
`neyId=5506605
`Transcript of Matthew Alderson Deposition from Solocron
`Media, LLC v. Cellco Partnership, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.), March 18, 2015 - de-designated by Verizon -
`Excerpted
`Transcript of Keith Lampron Deposition from Solocron
`Media, LLC v. Cellco Partnership, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.), March 19, 2015 - de-designated by Verizon -
`Excerpted
`Transcript of Markman Hearing from Solocron Media, LLC
`v. Cellco Partnership, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.),
`January 9, 2015
`New York State Bar profile for Thomas A. Restaino, March
`28, 2015, available at
`https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attor
`neyId=5444190
`Docket Report from Cell and Network Selection LLC v.
`AT&T Inc., No. 6:11cv00706LED-JDL (E.D. Tex.), January
`12, 2015
`Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer
`Complaint filed in Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-
`01777-PSG (N.D. Cal.), May 4, 2012
`LinkedIn profile of Glenn Lurie, March 24, 2015, available
`at https://www.linkedin.com/in/glennlurie
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2054
`
`Exhibit 2055
`
`Exhibit 2056
`
`Exhibit 2057
`
`Exhibit 2058
`
`
`
`
`Glenn Lurie: Executive Profile & Biography Businessweek,
`Bloomberg, March 24, 2015, available at
`http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.as
`p?personId=142206880&privcapId=6518790&previousCapI
`d=362194&previousTitle=Zoran%20Corporation
`AT&T’s Motion to Dismiss filed in Solocron Media, LLC v.
`Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), February 28,
`2014
`Stipulation of Dismissal filed in Solocron Media, LLC v.
`Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), February 28,
`2014
`Summons Returned Executed filed in Solocron Media, LLC
`v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), December
`18, 2013
`Summons Returned Executed filed in Solocron Media, LLC
`v. Verizon, No. 2:13-cv-1059-JRG (E.D. Tex.), December
`18, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Solocron Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this Preliminary Response
`
`in this case relating to Claims 53, 54, 56, 59, 64, and 65 of the ‘759 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is one of 13 petitions1 (the “Petitions”) filed by Petitioners Cellco
`
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”) and AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`(“AT&T Mobility”) against six patents (the “Patents”).2 The Patents were asserted
`
`against Petitioners and their parents Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”) and
`
`AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”). Ex. 2023 [Amended Complaint] (the “Litigation”).
`
`The Petitions must be rejected because Petitioners failed to name at least
`
`their parents, Verizon and AT&T, and another AT&T subsidiary, AT&T Services,
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-00342, ‘349, ‘350, ‘364, ‘376, ‘380, ‘383, ‘387-‘392.
`
`2 U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,496,692; 7,257,395; 7,295,864; 7,319,866; 7,742,759; 8,594,651.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Inc. (“AT&T Services”) as real parties-in-interest (“RPI” or “RPIs”),3 and the
`
`statutory one-year bar has already expired.
`
`Under this Board’s precedents, a parent corporation with the opportunity to
`
`control its petitioner-subsidiary is an RPI, especially where, as here, the entities
`
`blur corporate lines, have common interests in invalidating the patents-at-issue,
`
`and take unified action to further that goal.
`
`Verizon’s control of Verizon Wireless is undeniable. In a public securities
`
`filing, Verizon disclosed to its shareholders its “full control” over Verizon
`
`Wireless (together, “Verizon Entities”). Indeed, Verizon Wireless is actually run
`
`by a Verizon vice president who, like his predecessor, reports directly to Verizon’s
`
`CEO and Chairman. That very same Verizon Chairman is also the Chairman of
`
`Verizon Wireless. The corporate lines between the Verizon entities are so
`
`completely blurred that a parade of Verizon Wireless employees testified in the
`
`
`
`
`3 Patent Owner reserves the right to identify other parties as unnamed RPIs as well,
`
`including other Verizon and/or AT&T entities and other co-defendants in the
`
`Litigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Litigation that they are not sure which entity they work for in the Verizon
`
`umbrella.
`
`Verizon’s control over Verizon Wireless has continued in the Litigation.
`
`Verizon’s in-house attorneys represented Verizon Wireless at the Litigation
`
`mediation, presumably with the ability to settle both the Litigation and the
`
`Petitions. These same Verizon attorneys also appeared at the Markman Hearing
`
`and at depositions on behalf of Verizon Wireless. Conspicuously absent at all of
`
`these events were any in-house counsel employed by Verizon Wireless.
`
`Because the Patents were asserted against both Verizon Entities, they have
`
`identical interests in invalidating them, and have taken unified actions to further
`
`that goal. The same outside counsel represents both Verizon Entities in the
`
`Litigation and Verizon Wireless in each of the Petitions. In the Litigation, the
`
`Verizon Entities refer to themselves as “Verizon,” have jointly prayed the court to
`
`invalidate the Patents, and file documents jointly, including invalidity contentions
`
`that include over two-thirds of the primary prior art references asserted in these
`
`Petitions.
`
`The relationship between AT&T and its subsidiary AT&T Mobility is
`
`similar. AT&T publicly admits it has “sole control” over AT&T Mobility and
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`appointed AT&T Mobility’s CEO. AT&T’s Chairman & CEO is also a Director
`
`of AT&T Mobility.
`
`AT&T has centralized control over all AT&T legal matters. AT&T’s
`
`General Counsel explains that he has “responsibility for all legal matters affecting
`
`AT&T.” Similarly, AT&T’s Chief Intellectual Property Counsel indicates that he
`
`is “responsible for all intellectual property legal advice and counsel to the
`
`businesses of the AT&T enterprise such as AT&T Mobility[.]”
`
`This control over AT&T Mobility’s legal matters has manifested itself in
`
`both the Petitions and the Litigation, and continued even after AT&T was
`
`dismissed from the case. An AT&T Services attorney is managing both the
`
`Petitions and the Litigation for AT&T Mobility. The AT&T Services attorney
`
`signed the power of attorney appointing AT&T Mobility’s counsel in the Petitions,
`
`without which the Petitions could not have been filed. In the Litigation, that same
`
`attorney was AT&T Mobility’s sole in-house representative at the Markman
`
`Hearing, in depositions, and, importantly, at the mediation with the presumptive
`
`ability to settle both the Litigation and the Petitions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`The lines between the AT&T entities are blurred: they use the brand
`
`“AT&T” to refer to “substantially all” of their “services and products” and its
`
`personnel from both use an “@att.com” email address and “AT&T” letterhead.
`
`Under these circumstances, AT&T and its subsidiary AT&T Services have
`
`at the very least the opportunity to control the Petitions, and are RPIs.
`
`Because the Petitions cannot be instituted due to Petitioners’ failure to
`
`identify all RPIs, Patent Owner does not address the merits of Petitioners’ claim
`
`construction and prior art arguments in detail in its preliminary responses.4 This is
`
`not an indication, however, that Petitioners’ arguments have any merit.
`
`To the contrary, Petitioners’ arguments are founded upon infirm and
`
`opportunistic proposed claim constructions that conflict with their Litigation
`
`positions, the court’s Claim Construction Order, the Board’s claim construction
`
`
`
`
`4 If the Petitions are instituted in whole or in part, however, Patent Owner reserves
`
`all rights to challenge all of the positions taken by Petitioners, including their claim
`
`construction positions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`law, and even Petitioners’ own positions in other Petitions involving the Patents,
`
`even though all the Patents share an identical specification.
`
`Petitioners’ prior art arguments fare no better. Petitioners repeatedly fail to
`
`identify disclosures of key claim terms in their references, explain why references
`
`could or would be combined, and explain why the patented inventions are obvious
`
`in light of the cited art.
`
`Petitioners certainly take no effort to explain why they require 13 Petitions,
`
`spanning nearly 800 pages—not to mention 1,400 pages of expert reports, over 40
`
`references, and over 80 grounds—to make their arguments against the Patents.
`
`Should the Board decide to institute review in spite of the Petitions’ many failings,
`
`it should do so only on limited grounds. The numerous requested grounds here are
`
`redundant as they all show the same alleged teaching, and Petitioners do not
`
`explain why one reference is better or worse than any other.
`
`II. THE PETITION FAILS TO IDENTIFY ALL REAL PARTIES-IN-
`INTEREST AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE AND RULE.
`
`Petitioners failed to name Verizon, AT&T, and AT&T Services as RPIs.
`
`Petitioners cannot correct the Petition because the statutory one-year bar expired in
`
`December. Consequently, the Petitions must be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`A. Legal Background.
`
`“[An Inter Partes Review] may be considered only if . . . the petition
`
`identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) (emphasis added); see
`
`also 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) (requiring identification of “each real party-in-interest
`
`for the party”). Failing to identify a single RPI bars institution of the IPR. See,
`
`e.g., Paramount Home Entm’t Inc. v. Nissim Corp., IPR2014-00961, Paper 11 at 8
`
`n.3 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2014) (per Scanlon, APJ) (“Because this determination [that
`
`one RPI was unnamed] leads us to deny the Petition, we do not reach whether any
`
`of the other non-identified entities is a real party-in-interest.”).
`
`The RPI “is generally one that ‘desires review’ of the patent at issue . . . .”
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01422, Paper 14 at 6 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 5, 2015) (per Pollock, APJ) (quoting Office Patent Trial Practice Guide; Rule,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (August 14, 2012) (to be codified at C.F.R. pt. 42)).
`
`A touchstone of the RPI analysis is whether the non-party has an “‘actual measure
`
`of control, or the opportunity to control’” the IPR. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips
`
`Elecs. N. Am. Corp., IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 at 10 (P.T.A.B. March 20, 2014)
`
`(per Quinn, APJ) (quoting 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Whether an unnamed party is an RPI “is a highly fact-dependent question.”
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759. When evidence calls into question a petitioner’s RPI
`
`identifications, the petitioner bears the burden of proving it identified all RPIs.
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper
`
`88 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015) (per Boucher, APJ). Petitioners are “far more likely
`
`to be in possession of, or to have access to, evidence relevant to the issue than is a
`
`patent owner.” Id. Consequently, the Board routinely makes adverse inferences
`
`against a petitioner based upon that petitioner’s silence regarding facts relating to
`
`RPI issues. See, e.g., Zoll, IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 at 10; Atlanta Gas, IPR2013-
`
`00453, Paper 88 at 11; Paramount, IPR2014-00961, Paper 11 at 9.
`
`1.
`
`Parent Corporations That Control Their Subsidiaries Are
`Routinely Considered Real Parties-In-Interest.
`
`When a subsidiary files a petition without naming its parent as an RPI, the
`
`mere fact of the parent-subsidiary relationship “weighs heavily in favor of finding
`
`[the parent] to be a real party in interest[.]” Atlanta Gas, IPR2013-00453, Paper 88
`
`at 11. This is so because “[f]actors for determining actual control or the
`
`opportunity to control include existence of a financially controlling interest in the
`
`petitioner.” Zoll, IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 at 9 (citing Rules Of Practice For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`Trials Before PTAB & Judicial Review Of PTAB Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at C.F.R. tit. 37, ch. 1)); Askeladden
`
`LLC v. McGhie, IPR2015-00122, Paper 30 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2015) (per
`
`Chang, APJ) (same). The Board routinely finds parent corporations to be RPIs:
`
`We are persuaded by the evidence presented by Patent Owner shows
`sufficiently that ZOLL Medical and Petitioner have a very close parent
`and wholly-owned subsidiary relationship with aligned interests and
`sufficient opportunity for ZOLL Medical to control the challenge to the
`patentability of the patent-at-issue . . . .
`
`Zoll, IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 at 10; see also Atlanta Gas, IPR2013-00453, Paper
`
`88 at 11-13, Paramount, IPR2014-00961, Paper 11at 11; Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp.,
`
`IPR2014-01329, Paper 33 at 14 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015) (per Easthom, APJ);
`
`Galderma, IPR2014-01422, Paper 14 at 12-13; Askeladden, IPR2015-00122, Paper
`
`30 at 3.5
`
`
`
`
`5 Patent Owner is aware of only three sets (as of last week) of cases where a parent
`
`was not found to be an RPI. In both, the patent owner presented little evidence
`
`beyond the existence of the parent/subsidiary relationship to establish the parent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Parent Corporations That Blur Corporate Lines With Their
`Subsidiaries Are Routinely Considered Real Parties-In-Interest.
`
`While the mere existence of the parent-subsidiary relationship goes a long
`
`way toward confirming the parent’s status as an RPI, when the two entities blur
`
`corporate lines such a finding is particularly compelled. See, e.g., Zoll, IPR2013-
`
`00606, Paper 13 at 10 (finding parent to be an RPI where “Petitioner’s actions have
`
`blurred sufficiently the lines of corporate separation with its parent, ZOLL
`
`Medical, such that ZOLL Medical could have controlled the filing and
`
`
`
`
`was an RPI. See, e.g., TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-01010,
`
`Paper 8 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014) (per Grossman, APJ); Commerce
`
`Bancshares, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00801, Paper 7 at 5
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2014) (per Bisk, APJ); accord Sony Computer Ent’t Am. LLC v.
`
`Game Controller Tech. LLC, IPR2013-00634, Paper 31 at 7-8 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2,
`
`2015) (per Meyer, APJ) (decided last Thursday, denying omitted-RPI argument as
`
`untimely, and also noting that Patent Owner provided little evidence beyond
`
`existence of parent/subsidiary relationship to establish parent was RPI).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00390 Patent 7,742,759 Attorney Docket No. 150108-011 USIPR
`
`
`
`
`participation of the IPRs.”); Atlanta Gas, IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 at 11 (finding
`
`parent to be an RPI where “[r]ather than maintaining well-defined corporate
`
`boundaries, AGLR, Petitioner, and AGLS are so intertwined that it is difficult for
`
`both insiders and outsiders to determine precisely where one ends and another
`
`begins.”); Zerto, IPR2014-01329, Paper 33 at 10 (same); Galderma, IPR2014-
`
`01422, Paper 14 at 8 (same). Corporate “blurring” also exists where the leadership
`
`of the subsidiary is affiliated with the parent. See, e.g., Galderma, IPR2014-
`
`01422, Paper 14 at 8; Askeladden, IPR2015-00122, Paper 30 at 11.
`
`3.
`
`Parent Corporations That Have An Aligned Interest In
`Invalidating A Patent, Take Unified Actions In Litigation,
`And/Or Share Common Counsel Are Routinely Considered
`Real Parties-In-Interest.
`
`A finding that a parent and subsidiary have aligned interests and/or are
`
`engaged in unified actions in litigation further supports a finding that the parent is
`
`an RPI. Zoll, IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 at 10 (finding parent to be an RPI where
`
`“[t]he circumstantial evidence shows unified actions by Petitioner and ZOLL
`
`Medical in the ‘multi-state patent war’ of which the instant IPR is a part—with
`
`Patent Owner.”) (citation
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
