throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 10
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 15, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (“Samsung”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–29 of U.S.
`Patent No. 5,711,849 (Ex. 1001, “the ’849 patent”). Concurrently with its
`Petition, Samsung filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Motion” or “Mot.”),
`seeking to join, as a Petitioner, with Micron Technology, Inc. v. Daniel L.
`Flamm, Case IPR2017-00406 (“the Micron IPR”). Patent Owner Daniel L.
`Flamm (“Flamm”) did not file an opposition to Samsung’s Motion. Micron
`Technology, Inc., Intel Corporation, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. Inc.
`(collectively, “the Micron Petitioners”), the petitioners in the Micron IPR,
`filed a Partial Opposition to Samsung’s Motion (Paper 7, “Opposition” or
`“Opp.”), and Samsung filed a Reply (Paper 8, “Reply”). On September 12,
`2017, Flamm filed a Notice electing to waive a preliminary response to the
`Petition. Paper 9.
`For the reasons set forth below, we grant Samsung’s Motion for
`Joinder.
`
`
`II. DISCRETION TO GRANT JOINDER
`The controlling statute regarding joinder of inter partes reviews is
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads as follows:
`(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
`partes review under section 314.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`By regulation, the Director’s discretion has been delegated to the Board.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We, therefore, have discretion to join Samsung to the
`instituted Micron IPR if we determine that Samsung’s Petition warrants
`institution of an inter partes review.
`The ground of unpatentability asserted in the instant Petition is the
`same as that presented in the Micron IPR. Compare Pet. 5, with IPR2016-
`00406, Paper 1, 5; see also Ex. 1023, 231 (comparison document showing
`redlined differences between the Micron IPR Petition and Samsung’s
`Petition). Samsung states that its Petition includes the same ground and
`arguments as that in the Micron IPR, and notes that it challenges the same
`claims of the same patent, relies on the same expert declaration, and is based
`on the same ground and combination of prior art submitted in the Micron
`IPR Petition. Mot. 4.
`We previously determined, upon consideration of the Micron IPR
`Petition and Flamm’s Preliminary Response, that the record in the Micron
`IPR established a reasonable likelihood that the Micron Petitioners would
`prevail with respect to all challenged claims on the presented ground.
`IPR2017-00406, Paper 10, 16–17. Given the identical ground and evidence
`presented in the present proceeding, we likewise determine that Samsung’s
`Petition warrants institution on the presented ground. We rely on, and
`hereby incorporate by reference, the reasoning set forth in our Decision on
`Institution in the Micron IPR. See id. at 6–17.
`
`
`1 The cited page numbers in Ex. 1023 refer to the numbers added by
`Samsung in the bottom left corner of the page.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`III. GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`Having determined that Samsung’s Petition warrants institution, we
`must determine whether to exercise our discretion to join Samsung as a party
`to the Micron IPR. As the moving party, Samsung bears the burden of
`showing that joinder is appropriate. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A
`motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) explain
`what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule; and (4)
`address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See
`Frequently Asked Question (“FAQ”) H5 on the Board’s website at
`https://go.usa.gov/xRHCf.
`As noted, Samsung’s Petition asserts the same ground of
`unpatentability on which we instituted review in the Micron IPR. See Mot.
`4; Pet. 5; Ex. 1023, 23; IPR2017-00406, Paper 10, 17. Samsung also relies
`on the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Micron
`Petitioners. See Mot. 4. Indeed, Samsung’s Petition is identical to the
`Micron IPR Petition with respect to the ground on which review was
`instituted in the Micron IPR. See id.; Ex. 1023, 23–94. Thus, this inter
`partes review does not present any ground or matter not already at issue in
`the Micron IPR.
`If joinder is granted, “Samsung explicitly agrees to take an
`‘understudy’ role” in the joined proceeding, so long as any of the Micron
`Petitioners remains an active party. Mot. 6. In particular, Samsung agrees
`that, in the joined proceeding,
`a) all filings by Samsung in the joined proceeding be
`consolidated with the filings of [the Micron Petitioners], unless
`a filing concerns issues solely involving Samsung; b) Samsung
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`instituted by the Board in the Micron IPR, or introduce any
`argument or discovery not already introduced by [the Micron
`Petitioners]; c) Samsung shall be bound by any agreement
`between [Flamm] and [the Micron Petitioners] concerning
`discovery and/or depositions; and d) Samsung at deposition shall
`not receive any direct, cross examination or redirect time beyond
`that permitted under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement
`between [Flamm] and [the Micron Petitioners].
`Id. at 6–7 (citing Noven Pharmas., Inc. v. Novartis AG, Case IPR2014-
`00550, slip. op. at 5 (PTAB April 10, 2015) (Paper 38)). Because Samsung
`will not assume an active role in the Micron IPR “[u]nless and until [the
`Micron Petitioners] cease to participate” in the Micron IPR, Samsung
`submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for the Micron IPR.
`Id.
`
`The Micron Petitioners state that they “do not object to joinder if
`Samsung is limited to a truly passive role, but they do object to the extent
`Samsung’s terms go beyond a truly passive role or would prompt [Flamm]
`to attempt to raise a privity challenge based on any required coordination.”
`Opp. 3. In particular, the Micron Petitioners argue that “Samsung’s motion
`appears to require coordination with” the Micron Petitioners, and “seeks at
`least some deposition examination time.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Mot. 7).
`According to the Micron Petitioners, this “would create additional and
`unnecessary work” for them, and would increase the complexity and cost of
`the Micron IPR. Id. at 4. Additionally, the Micron Petitioners argue that,
`due to Samsung’s earlier bar date, they “have taken great care not to
`coordinate or work with Samsung” on the Micron IPR “in order to avoid any
`argument by [Flamm] regarding privity.” Id. The Micron Petitioners further
`argue that “[t]hey should not be forced to do so now in the absence of either”
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`a Board ruling that such coordination “will not allow [Flamm] to raise a
`privity or challenge” or Flamm’s “waiver of the bar date issue.” Id. at 4–5.
`Samsung replies that “the consolidation of filings as referenced in
`Samsung’s Motion simply refers to the fact that any paper filed by the
`Petitioners (including Samsung, if joined) that relates to issues common to
`all Petitioners will be filed as a consolidated filing,” and “the reference to
`deposition time in Samsung’s Motion was not a request for deposition time
`but simply an agreement to conditions set forth in other Board decisions.”
`Reply 2. Samsung states that “to alleviate any concerns raised” in the
`Opposition,
`Samsung further agrees that until the Micron Petitioners
`otherwise agree or cease participation in the proceeding: (1)
`Samsung will not participate in any filings or discovery unless
`the filing or discovery involves an issue solely relating to
`Samsung; and (2) Samsung will not present oral argument unless
`oral argument concerns an issue solely relating to Samsung.
`Id. at 3.
`Having considered Samsung’s Motion, as well as the Micron
`Petitioners’ Opposition and Samsung’s Reply thereto, we agree with
`Samsung that joinder with the Micron IPR is appropriate under the particular
`facts and circumstances of this case. Samsung’s Petition does not assert any
`new grounds of unpatentability that is not already being considered in the
`Micron IPR, it relies on the same arguments and evidence, and it does not
`require any modification of the existing schedule. Accordingly, we grant
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder, subject to the requirements set forth in the
`Order below.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Samsung’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground on which IPR2017-00406 was
`instituted is unchanged, and no other grounds are instituted in the
`consolidated proceeding beyond those set forth in IPR2017-00406, Paper 10;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place in
`IPR2017-00406 shall continue to govern the joined proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that in IPR2017-00406, any paper, except for
`a motion that does not involve the other party, shall be filed by the Micron
`Petitioners as a single, consolidated filing on behalf of the Micron
`Petitioners and Samsung, pursuant to the word count or page limits set forth
`in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, and the Micron Petitioners will identify each such
`filing as a consolidated filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that except as otherwise agreed by all parties,
`counsel for the Micron Petitioners will conduct cross-examination and other
`discovery on behalf of the Micron Petitioners and Samsung, and that Flamm
`is not required to provide separate discovery responses or additional
`deposition time as a result of the joinder;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Micron Petitioners and Samsung
`collectively will designate attorneys to present at the oral hearing (if
`requested and scheduled) as a consolidated presentation;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Samsung will not participate in any
`filings or discovery, or participate in the oral hearing (if requested and
`scheduled), unless an issue solely relating to Samsung is involved;
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01748
`Patent 5,711,849
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-01748 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in this proceeding are to be made in
`IR2017-00406;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`into the records of IPR2017-00406 and IPR2017-01748; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2017-00406 shall
`be changed in accordance with the attached example.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Chetan R. Bansal
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`PH-Samsung-Flamm-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-004061
`Patent 5,711,849
`____________
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this
`proceeding via Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01748.
`
`
`
`

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