Paper 16
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,
`and RPX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge DESHPANDE.
`
`Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge GALLIGAN.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Joinder and Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122(b)
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,
`and RPX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge DESHPANDE.
`
`Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge GALLIGAN.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Joinder and Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc., and RPX Corp.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 2, 7, 14, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’717 patent”) and a Motion for Joinder (Paper 4, “Mot.”)
`
`seeking to have this Petition joined to IPR2015-01823. M2M Solutions
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed an Opposition (Paper 9, “Opp.”) to Petitioner’s
`
`Motion for Joinder as well as a Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper
`
`14, “Prelim. Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 12, “Reply”) to Patent
`
`Owner’s Opposition.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that
`
`follow, Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and Petition are denied.
`
`
`
`Related Case IPR2015-01823
`
`On August 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition to institute an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–24, 29, and 30 of the ’717 patent.
`
`IPR2015-01823, Paper 1. On March 8, 2016, the Board instituted an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10–13, 15–24, and 29. IPR2015-01823,
`
`Paper 16, 32‒33 (“-1823 Dec. on Inst.”). The Board did not institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 2, 7, 14, and 30. Id. at 25–26, 33. Petitioner
`
`subsequently filed, on April 8, 2016, its Petition in the instant proceeding
`
`challenging claims 2, 7, 14, and 30, and a Motion for Joinder requesting that
`
`this proceeding be joined with IPR2015-01823.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`II. MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29 (2011),
`
`permits joinder of like review proceedings. Thus, an inter partes review
`
`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.
`
`Thus, joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant
`
`joinder is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. The Board
`
`determines whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into
`
`account the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues,
`
`and other considerations.
`
`As the movant, Petitioner bears the burden to show that joinder is
`
`appropriate. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should: (1) set
`
`forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new ground(s)
`
`of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what impact (if
`
`any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See
`
`Frequently Asked Question H5 on the Board’s website at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp. Petitioner should specifically
`
`address how briefing and/or discovery may be simplified to minimize
`
`schedule impact. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC, Case IPR2013-
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15) (representative); Mot.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner argues that its Motion for Joinder is timely and joinder is
`
`appropriate because of efficiency, public policy considerations, and a lack of
`
`prejudice to Patent Owner. Mot. 5‒8. Petitioner further sets forth that the
`
`instant Petition generally relies upon substantially the same prior art and the
`
`same declarant as Petitioner relied upon in IPR2015-01823. Id. at 6‒7.
`
`Petitioner also argues generally that joinder will not result in
`
`unnecessary delay. Id. at 9. Specifically, Petitioner asserts it is “willing to
`
`forfeit a reasonable portion[] of its response period to the extent that it is
`
`deemed necessary” and Petitioner “will also accommodate any reasonable
`
`logistical or scheduling request” of Patent Owner. Id.; Reply 4 (stating that
`
`Petitioner will agree to unspecified “changes in the schedule”).
`
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner has not met “its burden of proof for
`
`explaining the impact joinder would have on the trial schedule for the
`
`existing review or to address specifically how briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified.” Opp. 12. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that although
`
`Petitioner generally states that Petitioner is willing to forfeit reasonable
`
`portions of its response period and will accommodate reasonable logistical
`
`and scheduling requests, Petitioner does not set forth any specific impact
`
`joinder would have on the trial schedule. Id. at 12–13. Patent Owner further
`
`argues that Petitioner’s “Motion is silent” as to how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified. Id.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain specific
`
`modifications to the schedule that would be necessary to account for the
`
`additional issues, grounds, and prior art raised in the Petition. See Mot. 9;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`Reply 4. Indeed, the inter partes review in IPR2015-01823 involves four
`
`prior art references (Whitley, SIM Specification, Kail, and Eldridge) and
`
`three grounds of unpatentability. -1823 Dec. on Inst. 32–33. The Petition in
`
`the instant proceeding raises two additional prior art references (SIM
`
`Application Toolkit and SIM API Spec.) and asserts two additional prior art
`
`grounds challenging four claims, with new declarant testimony for the newly
`
`asserted grounds. Pet. 6–9.
`
`Nor does Petitioner explain how briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified. As noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner filed the instant Petition a
`
`full month after the Institution Decision in IPR2015-01823 and only six
`
`weeks before the deadline for Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2015-01823.
`
`Opp. 9; see IPR2015-01823, Paper 19, 6. Petitioner’s general statements of
`
`forfeiting “reasonable” periods of its response period and accommodating
`
`“reasonable” logistical and scheduling requests does not address sufficiently
`
`the impact joinder would have on the trial schedule of IPR2015-01823,
`
`particularly given that Patent Owner already filed its Response on May 25,
`
`2016. As such, Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation as to how
`
`such timing would impact the trial schedule for IPR2015-01823 or any
`
`modifications to the trial schedule that would be necessary to accommodate
`
`joinder.
`
`We also note that, under the circumstances, joinder would have a
`
`significant adverse impact on the Board’s ability to complete the existing
`
`proceeding in a timely manner, which weighs against granting the Motion
`
`for Joinder. The Board is charged with securing the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding, and has the discretion to join or
`
`not join proceedings to ensure that objective is met. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b),
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`42.122. Case IPR2015-01823 was filed more than eleven months ago, with
`
`Patent Owner having filed its Response and Petitioner having filed its Reply.
`
`See IPR2015-01823, Paper 19, 6. Joinder at this stage would require a
`
`lengthy delay in the ongoing review given the additional challenges and
`
`evidence at issue.
`
`Based on the timing of the Petition in the instant proceeding and its
`
`necessary impact on the trial schedule of IPR2015-01823 and the Board’s
`
`ability to complete timely the existing proceeding if joinder were granted, as
`
`well as Petitioner’s failure to explain sufficiently the impact joinder would
`
`have on the trial schedule of IPR2015-01823, we deny Petitioner’s Motion
`
`for Joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`
`
`III. PETITION
`
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 2, 7,
`
`14, and 30 the ’717 patent. The standard for instituting an inter partes
`
`review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes
`
`review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition
`
`shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” However,
`
`§315(b) further provides:
`
`An 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. The time limitation set forth in the preceding
`sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under
`subsection (c).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that the “one-year bar set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.101(b) does not apply” because the instant Petition is filed with a
`
`timely-filed Motion for Joinder. Pet. 5‒6. Patent Owner contends the
`
`Petition is time-barred because it was filed more than one year after
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’717
`
`patent. Opp. 1.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is denied. Petitioner filed the Petition
`
`in this proceeding on April 8, 2016, which is more than one year after Sierra
`
`Wireless America, Inc. and Sierra Wireless, Inc. were served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’717 patent in 2014. See Ex. 3001.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred and we do not institute an inter
`
`partes review of claims 2, 7, 14, and 30 of the ’717 patent.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and that no inter
`
`partes review is instituted with respect to any of the challenged claims of the
`
`’717 patent on the grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring in the result.
`
`
`I join Sections III and IV of the majority opinion. Although I concur
`
`in the denial of the Motion for Joinder, I do not join the majority’s analysis
`
`in Section II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2016-00853
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jeffrey Costakos
`jcostakos@foley.com
`
`Michelle Moran
`mmoran@foley.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
