throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`
`Entered: January 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`Denying Motion for Additional Discovery
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively,
`“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) requested an inter partes review of claims 1 and
`3–16 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“the ’913
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Microsoft also filed a Motion for
`Joinder (Paper 3, “Joinder Motion” or “Joinder Mot.”) requesting that it be
`joined to IPR2017-00386 (“the 386 IPR”), a pending inter partes review
`involving claims 1 and 3–16 of the ’913 patent.
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary
`Response to the Petition. With our authorization, however, Patent Owner
`filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 12, “Discovery Motion” or
`“Discovery Mot.”). Microsoft filed an Opposition to the Motion for
`Additional Discovery. Paper 14 (“Discovery Opposition” or “Discovery
`Opp.”). Together with Microsoft and with our authorization, Patent Owner
`also filed a Joint Stipulation on the Motion for Joinder, wherein Patent
`Owner states that it does not oppose Microsoft’s Joinder Motion. Paper 7
`(“Joinder Joint Stipulation”), 3.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless it is determined that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” Based on the information presented in the Petition, we are
`persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to claims 1 and 3–16. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1 and 3–16 on the grounds specified below. We further
`grant Petitioner’s Joinder Motion and deny Patent Owner’s Discovery
`Motion for the reasons discussed below.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS OF PETITION
`A. Overview of the ’913 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’913 patent relates to entering characters on a handheld mobile
`device via a keypad. Ex. 1001, 1:18–21. Figure 1 of the ’913 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a default display state of a keypad 100 with twelve
`keys 102, where each key is associated with a primary character 104 and a
`plurality of secondary characters 106. Id. at 3:25–28. The primary
`characters in Figure 1 are the numbers and symbols displayed on the keys of
`the keypad. Id. at 3:28–31. The secondary characters in Figure 1 are the
`letters displayed in groups below each key. Id. at 3:31–37.
`In one embodiment, a user selects a primary character by initiating a
`“quick tapping” of the corresponding key for a pre-determined time period,
`for instance 0.2 seconds. Id. at 6:1–6. If the user’s tap is longer than the
`pre-determined time period, the keypad responds to the user’s tap by
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`entering into a second state, wherein secondary characters associated with
`the selected key are made available. Id. at 4:4–6, 6:3–6. Figure 2 of the
`’913 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a second display state of the keypad after a first key
`selection by a user. Id. at 3:42–43. In this instance, the user has selected the
`key associated with primary character ‘5’, causing the primary character ‘5’
`to remain displayed on the selected key and causing the associated
`secondary characters ‘j’, ‘k’, and ‘l’ each to be displayed on an adjacent key.
`Id. at 3:44–52. The user may now select any of the displayed characters by
`tapping on the corresponding key, thereby providing “quick and accurate
`character input wherein secondary characters are available with only two
`key selections.” Id. at 3:63–65, 4:4–6. “Following a character input, the
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`keypad of [Figure] 2 is returned to the default display state as shown in
`[Figure] 1.” Id. at 3:60–62.
`Illustrative Claim
`B.
`Claims 1, 3, and 4 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of
`the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
`1.
`A method for inputting a character to a device, the
`device including a keypad, the keypad including a plurality of
`keys, at least one of the keys has a primary character, a plurality
`of secondary characters and an associated display area, the
`keypad in a default state displaying the primary character
`associated with the at least one key in the associated display area,
`the method comprising acts of:
`in the default state,
`returning the primary character as an input character
`in response to selection of the at least one key
`for a period shorter than a predetermined time
`period;
`switching to a second state after detecting a first key
`selection of the at least one key for a period
`longer than the predetermined time period;
`in the second state:
`the secondary characters
`displaying each of
`associated with the first selected key in a
`respective display area;
`detecting a second key selection;
`selecting for the input character the secondary
`character associated with the second key
`selection; and
`returning the keypad to the default state.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`Related Proceedings and Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`C.
`Petitioner identifies several actions for infringement of the ’913 patent
`pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
`Pet. 3.
`The ’913 patent is also the subject of the 386 IPR, which we instituted
`on June 12, 2017 on the following two grounds of unpatentability:
`1. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II1; and
`2. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II and Buxton2.
`386 IPR, Paper 8, 19. We incorporate herein our analysis from the Decision
`on Institution in the 386 IPR.
`The instant Petition challenges the same claims on identical grounds
`of unpatentability, and relies on the same evidence and arguments as
`presented in the 386 IPR. Pet. 1; Joinder Mot. 1–2. Petitioner states:
`This Petition proposes the same grounds of rejection that were
`proposed in the [386] IPR and that were instituted by the Board
`in the [386] IPR. In fact, the Petition is entirely similar to [the
`386 IPR]’s petition with respect to the adopted grounds,
`including the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert
`testimony.
`
`
`Joinder Mot. 3. Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response and has
`not presented any arguments regarding the merits of the Petition beyond the
`argument raised in its Discovery Motion, in which Patent Owner alleges that
`“HTC” (collective of HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc.) may be a real party
`interest to the instant Petition. As discussed below, we deny Patent Owner’s
`Discovery Motion. See infra Section IV. Because Patent Owner raises no
`
`
`1 Sakata, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application No. 2000-148366
`(“Sakata II”) (Ex. 1004).
`2 Buxton, U.S. 6,094,197; iss. July 25, 2000 (“Buxton”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`further arguments against the Petition and because the Petition is virtually
`identical to the 386 IPR petition, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated
`sufficiently under 35 U.S.C. § 314 that an inter partes review should be
`instituted in this proceeding on the same grounds of unpatentability as the
`grounds on which we instituted inter partes review in the 386 IPR.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S JOINDER MOTION
`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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (A request for joinder must
`be filed, as a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, no later than one month after
`the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested).
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing
`and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00004, Paper 15. Petitioner, as movant, bears the burden of
`proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`As an initial matter, the present Joinder Motion meets the timing
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) because it was filed on July 12, 2017,
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`which is not later than one month after the 386 IPR was instituted on June
`12, 2017. Compare Joinder Mot. 8–10, with 386 IPR, Paper 8.
`Additionally, the present Petition challenges the same claims of the
`same patent as those under inter partes review in the 386 IPR, and the
`Petition also asserts the same grounds of unpatentability based on the same
`prior art and the same evidence, including the same testimony by the same
`declarant. See, e.g., Joinder Mot. 4 (“Microsoft’s Petition is not only limited
`to the same grounds adopted by the Board in the [386] IPR, but also relies
`on exactly the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert testimony as that
`submitted [in the 386 IPR].”). The Petition does not assert any other
`grounds of unpatentability not already of record in the 386 IPR. Id. at 6.
`Petitioner asserts that granting joinder will not impact negatively the existing
`scheduling order in the 386 IPR. Mot. 6–7. According to Petitioner, joinder
`will promote the efficient determination of validity of the challenged claims
`of the ’913 patent, as well as simplify briefing and discovery. Id. at 5.
`Finally, Petitioner states that it “does not oppose Microsoft’s motion to join
`IPR2017-01766 with IPR2017-00386.” Joinder Joint Stipulation 3.
`In their Joinder Joint Stipulation, the parties agree on a proposal for
`how the 386 IPR would proceed if Microsoft is joined to that proceeding.
`Specifically, the parties agreed that:
`2. The joint proceeding will be based exclusively on the petition
`and evidence filed by Google[3] in IPR2017-00386[;]
`3. If Microsoft receives any time for cross and re-direct
`examination of any witness or for oral argument, at Google’s
`discretion, such time will be taken from the time allotted to
`Google in IPR2017-00386[; and]
`
`3 The parties identify Google Inc. as the lead petitioner in the 386 IPR. See
`generally Joinder Joint Stipulation.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`4. The submissions, page limits and word counts currently
`allotted in IPR2017-00386 for any written work product will not
`be affected by joinder, with the exception that, within 5 business
`days following the filing of any brief containing argument by
`Google, Microsoft may separately file up to five pages directed
`only to points of disagreement it may have with Google, and
`[Patent Owner] may thereafter respond within 5 business days
`with a corresponding number of pages. Microsoft may not
`separately advance any arguments in furtherance of those
`advanced by Google in the proceeding.
`
`
`Joinder Joint Stipulation 3. The parties state that the lead petitioner in the
`386 IPR, Google, does not oppose joinder generally, but does oppose the
`parties’ proposal that would allow Microsoft to file a separate brief of up to
`five pages directed to points of disagreement with Google. Id. at 2.
`Based on the facts and circumstances discussed above, we determine
`Petitioner has established good cause for joining this proceeding with the
`386 IPR. Specifically, we determine that Patent Owner will not be
`prejudiced unduly by the joinder of these proceedings, and joining
`Petitioner’s identical challenges to those in the 386 IPR will lead to greater
`efficiency, while conserving the resources of both the parties and the Board.
`Consequently, granting the Joinder Motion under these circumstances would
`help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of these
`proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). For the above reasons, we conclude
`that the Joinder Motion should be granted.
`We also determine that, after the joinder of Microsoft, the proceeding
`in the 386 IPR generally will be conducted in accordance with the parties’
`agreement discussed above. Specifically, the proceeding in 386 IPR will be
`based exclusively on the petition and evidence submitted by the current
`petitioners in that case, and the parties will adhere to the existing schedule in
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`the 386 IPR. All filings by Microsoft in the 386 IPR shall be consolidated
`with the filings of the current petitioners in that case, and the page limits and
`word counts set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 shall apply to all consolidated
`filings. If, however, Microsoft has a point of disagreement related to a
`consolidated filing, Microsoft may request authorization from the Board to
`file a separate brief of no more than five pages.4 If we authorize Microsoft
`to file a separate brief, Patent Owner may request authorization to file a
`response of no more than five pages. If an oral hearing is scheduled in the
`386 IPR, all petitioners shall present a consolidated argument at the hearing.
`Microsoft is bound by any discovery agreements, including any
`deposition arrangements, between Patent Owner and the current petitioners
`in the 386 IPR, and Microsoft shall not seek any discovery beyond that
`sought by the current petitioners in the 386 IPR without first seeking
`permission from the Board. Patent Owner shall not be required to provide
`any additional discovery or deposition time as a result of the joinder. We
`expect Microsoft, the current petitioners in the 386 IPR, and Patent Owner to
`meet and confer regarding any disputes between them and to contact the
`Board only if such matters cannot be resolved.
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Because Microsoft is required to request authorization from the Board
`before filing a separate brief in the 386 IPR, Google and the other current
`petitioners will have an opportunity to indicate to the Board whether they
`oppose the requested brief.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF PATENT OWNER’S DISCOVERY MOTION
`Patent Owner asserts in its Discovery Motion that “[t]he evidence
`indicates, beyond mere possibility, that evidence may exist to establish that,
`at least, (i) earlier IPR filers (Google, Acer, ASUS, and/or HTC) funded, in
`part, the current challenge, and (ii) at least one of Acer, ASUS, and HTC
`directed this IPR.” Discovery Mot. 1. Petitioner responds that, although
`Patent Owner “wants to argue that Microsoft is a real-party-in-interest
`(‘RPI’) with a third party,” Patent Owner’s “requested discovery is based on
`nothing more than speculation.” Discovery Opp. 1.
`In our authorization of this Discovery Motion, we “direct[ed] Patent
`Owner to Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012-
`00001, slip op. at 6–16 (Paper 26) (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013), for an explanation
`of the factors that we consider in connection with a motion for additional
`discovery.” Paper 11, 3. More specifically, we required that Patent Owner
`“identify in its motion the discovery being requested and explain why the
`discovery is necessary in the interest of justice, specifically identifying the
`evidence already in Patent Owner’s possession tending to show beyond mere
`speculation that something useful will be uncovered by the requested
`discovery.” Id. Having reviewed Patent Owner’s Discovery Motion and
`Petitioner’s Opposition thereto, we determine Patent Owner has not made
`the requisite showing.
`Our procedures are designed “to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding” and thus provide for limited
`discovery during inter partes reviews. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b), 42.51. “The
`test for a party seeking additional discovery in an inter partes review is a
`strict one.” Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case IPR2015-01545, slip op. at
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`4 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2015) (Paper 9). “The moving party must show that such
`additional discovery is in the interest of justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i).
`The Board has identified various factors to be considered in determining
`whether requested discovery is necessary in the interests of justice. See
`Garmin Int’l, Inc., Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 26, slip op. at 6–7.
`These factors include whether the requested discovery: (1) is based on more
`than a mere possibility of finding something useful; (2) seeks the other
`party’s litigation positions or the basis for those positions; (3) seeks
`information that reasonably can be generated without the discovery requests;
`(4) is easily understandable; and (5) is overly burdensome to answer. Id.
`The first of these factors weighs decisively in our consideration of Patent
`Owner’s Discovery Motion:
`More Than a Possibility and Mere Allegation—The mere
`possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that
`something useful will be found, are insufficient to demonstrate
`that the requested discovery is necessary in the interest of justice.
`The party requesting discovery should already be in possession
`of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact
`something useful will be discovered. [In this context, “useful”
`means “favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party
`moving for discovery.”]
`
`
`Id.
`
`Much of Patent Owner’s Discovery Motion addresses the purported
`relationships between Microsoft, Google, Acer, and ASUS, arguing that
`Microsoft fails to explain in the Petition why “neither Acer nor ASUS (both
`Microsoft OEMs) is named as an RPI in the present IPR.” Discovery
`Motion 1–2, 4, 6–8. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively how
`information related to any relationships between Microsoft, Google, Acer,
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`and ASUS would be “useful” to this specific proceeding. As best we can
`discern from Patent Owner’s argument, Patent Owner contends that the
`additional discovery it seeks might show that Acer and ASUS are real
`parties in interest to the instant proceeding and thus necessary parties. See,
`e.g., id. at 8 (“These interrelationships and action are threshold evidence that
`documents and other things may exist to establish that Acer and ASUS are
`RPIs, e.g., that Acer or ASUS directed/requested that Microsoft mount a
`challenge against the patent.”). But Petitioner’s Joinder Motion, to which
`Patent Owner consents, seeks to join Microsoft to the 386 IPR, in which
`Google, Acer, and ASUS are already current petitioners. Even assuming
`arguendo Patent Owner obtained additional discovery sufficient to show
`Acer and ASUS are necessary to this proceeding, Petitioner’s unopposed
`Joinder Motion would remedy any defect by adding Microsoft into the 386
`IPR with Acer and Asus. Petitioner’s Discovery Motion thus fails to
`establish that the requested discovery as to Acer, ASUS, and Google is
`based on more than a mere possibility of finding something useful, as
`required under the first Garmin factor.
`Finally, we consider Patent Owner’s argument that additional
`discovery is warranted to establish that HTC is a real party in interest to this
`proceeding. Whether a non-identified party is a real party in interest is a
`highly fact-dependent question. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). “A common consideration is whether
`the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s
`participation in a proceeding.” Id. Significantly, the first Garmin factor
`requires that “[t]he party requesting discovery should already be in
`possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`something useful will be discovered.” Garmin Int’l, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26, slip op. at 7. Thus, to establish that its discovery
`requests are in the interests of justice, Patent Owner must “provide evidence
`in its possession tending to show beyond speculation that a non-party
`exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a
`proceeding.” CaptionCall, LLC, v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2015-00636, slip op.
`at 5 (Feb. 23, 2015) (Paper 42).
`Here, Patent Owner contends that the instant Petition was filed by
`Microsoft “after expiration of HTC’s 1-year filing window under § 315(b)”
`and, therefore, “HTC was time-barred when Microsoft filed its petition in
`this IPR.” Discovery Mot. 3, 8. Patent Owner further argues that “HTC and
`Microsoft teamed up” to jointly bring a different petition on a different
`patent “using the same law firm that represents Microsoft in the present
`petition.” Id. Patent Owner continues:
`Finally, the fact that Google/Acer/ASUS also pursued challenges
`against 9 of the asserted patents, with no overlap in patents being
`challenged (until Microsoft filed follow-on petitions to try to
`remedy failures in the first round of filings) suggests a level of
`coordination in which Google, HTC, Acer, ASUS, and Microsoft
`divided responsibilities in collectively attacking the asserted
`patents.
`
`
`Id. at 9.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, even if
`HTC were a petitioner in this proceeding, the time limit set forth in § 315(b)
`would not prohibit joinder of HTC to the 386 IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`(“The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a
`request for joinder under subsection (c).”). Thus, the issue of whether non-
`party HTC is subject to the time limit set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`not establish that Patent Owner’s requested discovery as to HTC is based on
`more than a mere possibility of finding something useful, as required under
`the first Garmin factor.
`Second, Patent Owner does not explain why its observation that
`Microsoft and HTC previously used the same law firm in a petition on a
`different patent amounts to evidence in its possession tending to show
`beyond speculation that HTC exercised or could have exercised control over
`Microsoft’s participation in this proceeding. See Discovery Mot. 8. To the
`extent Patent Owner contends HTC may be indemnified by Microsoft,
`Patent Owner fails to explain how or why indemnification of HTC by
`Microsoft would result in HTC—not Microsoft—exercising control over this
`proceeding. See id. at 4.
`Third, Patent Owner’s assertion that the instant Petition constitutes
`Microsoft’s “follow-on petition” in an attempt “to try to remedy failures in
`the first round of filings” is unsupported in current record. Id. at 9. Rather
`than seeking to “remedy failures,” the instant Petition “is not only limited to
`the same grounds adopted by the Board in the [386] IPR, but also relies on
`exactly the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert testimony as that
`submitted [in the 386 IPR].” Joinder Mot. 4.
`Accordingly, we determine Patent Owner has failed to show that it is
`already in possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in
`fact something useful will be discovered by its request in the Discovery
`Motion. Patent Owner’s Discovery Motion is, therefore, denied.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of the ʼ913 patent is hereby instituted on the following grounds:
`A. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II; and
`B. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II and Buxton.
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is granted
`and that Microsoft is joined to IPR2017-00386;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted grounds of unpatentability on
`which the proceeding in IPR2017-00386 was instituted are unchanged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding in IPR2017-00386 is
`based on the petition and supporting evidence submitted therein;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding in IPR2017-00386 is
`governed by the previously-issued Scheduling Order (Paper 9);
`FURTHER ORDERED that all petitioners shall file all papers in
`IPR2017-00386 as a single, consolidated filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Microsoft is bound by any discovery
`agreements between the parties in IPR2017-00386;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if an oral hearing is requested and
`scheduled in IPR2017-00386, all petitioners will present a consolidated
`argument at the oral hearing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the caption in IPR2017-00386 shall be
`changed to reflect the joinder of Microsoft, as in the attached example;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Discovery Motion is denied; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings will be made in IPR2017-00386.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Christina J. McCullough
`Chad S. Campbell
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`cmccullough@perkinscoie.com
`jcrop@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin J. Oliver
`Jason Dorsky
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`philipsipr@fchs.com
`jdorsky@fchs.com
`
`17
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`
`Entered: January 16, 2018
`
`Example Case Caption
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`GOOGLE INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-003861
`Patent RE44,913
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (“Microsoft”) filed a
`petition in IPR2017-01766, and Microsoft has been joined to the instant
`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