`Entered: September 11, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01064
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, KRISTINA M. KALAN, J. JOHN LEE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Denying Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01064
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`On April 17, 2015, Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’147 patent”). Concurrently with the Petition, Oracle filed a
`
`Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”), requesting that this proceeding be joined
`
`with NetApp, Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., Case IPR2014-00773 (“773 IPR”).
`
`Mot. 1. Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc. (“Crossroads”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”) on July 22, 2015. Crossroads did not file an
`
`opposition to the Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`For the reasons discussed below, Oracle’s Motion for Joinder is denied, and
`
`the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`Oracle requests that the present case be joined with the 773 IPR. Mot. 1.
`
`An inter partes review may be joined with another inter partes review, subject to
`
`certain statutory provisions:
`
`(c) 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 parties review under
`section 314.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122.
`
`
`
`On September 9, 2015, the Petition in the 773 IPR was denied. 773 IPR,
`
`Paper 13. Thus, no inter partes review was instituted in the 773 IPR. As a result,
`
`the present case cannot be joined with the 773 IPR, and the Motion for Joinder
`
`must be denied.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01064
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`DENIAL OF INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if
`
`the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on
`
`which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Oracle admits in its Motion for
`
`Joinder that “Petitioner was served with a complaint asserting infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,051,147 more than one year before filing the petition in [this
`
`proceeding].” Mot. 1.
`
`
`
`Although Oracle is correct that the statutory bar in § 315(b) does not apply
`
`to a request for joinder, Oracle’s request for joinder is denied as discussed above.
`
`Consequently, the present case is not joined, and the Petition is subject to the
`
`§ 315(b) bar.
`
`It is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Oracle’s Motion for Joinder is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-01064
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Greg H. Gardella
`Scott A. McKeown
`OBLON LLP
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Russell Wong
`James H. Hall
`BLANK ROME, LLP
`CrossroadsIPR@blankrome.com
`
`
`Steven R. Sprinkle
`John L. Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.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
