IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`Case IPR2021-00570
`Patent No. 6,411,941
`__________
`
`PATENT OWNER ANCORA’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER SHOULD BE DENIED FOR
`MOOTNESS OR BECAUSE IT WILL UNDULY DELAY THE
`ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ............................................................................ 5
`A.
`The Board Should Terminate the Original Proceeding, Which
`Would Moot this Motion ....................................................................... 5
`Undue Delay in the Original Proceedings Alternatively Requires
`Denying Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder .............................................. 8
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY THIS
`PETITION .....................................................................................................11
`A.
`The General Plastic Factors Favor Discretionary Denial of HTC’s
`Joinder Petition ....................................................................................11
`1.
`Factor 1: Whether the Same Petitioner Previously Filed a
`Petition Directed to the Same Claims of the Same Patent, and
`Factor 3: Whether at the Time of Filing of the Second Petition
`the Petitioner Already Received the Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response to the First Petition or Received the
`Board’s Decision on Whether to Institute Review in the First
`Petition ......................................................................................12
`Factor 2: Whether at the Time of Filing of the First Petition
`the Petitioner Knew of the Prior Art Asserted in the Second
`Petition or Should Have Known of It .......................................12
`Factor 4: The Length of Time That Elapsed Between the
`Time the Petitioner Learned of the Prior Art Asserted in the
`Second Petition and the Filing of the Second Petition .............13
`Factor 5: Whether the Petitioner Provides Adequate
`Explanation for the Time Elapsed Between the Filings of
`Multiple Petitions Directed to the Same Claims of the Same
`Patent .........................................................................................13
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 6: The Finite Resources of the Board ............................14
`Factor 7: The Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to
`Issue a final Determination Not Later Than 1 Year After the
`Date on Which the Director Notices Institution of Review ......15
`In Total, the General Plastic Factors Weigh Against
`Institution ..................................................................................15
`The Fintiv Factors Favor Discretionary Denial of HTC’s Petition .....15
`1.
`Factor 1: Whether a Stay Exists or Is Likely to Be Granted If
`a Proceeding Is Instituted ..........................................................16
`Factor 2: Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s
`Projected Statutory Deadline ....................................................17
`Factor 3: Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court
`and Parties .................................................................................18
`Factor 4: Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and
`in the Parallel Proceeding .........................................................19
`Factor 5: Whether the Petitioner and the Defendant in the
`Parallel Proceeding Are the Same Party ...................................20
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances That Impact the Board’s
`Exercise of Discretion, Including the Merits ............................20
`In Total, the Fintiv Factors Weigh Against Institution .............21
`7.
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................21
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`Table of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 2001
`Ex. 2002
`Ex. 2003
`Ex. 2004
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`Ex. 2007
`Ex. 2008
`Ex. 2009
`
`Ex. 2010
`Ex. 2011
`
`Ex. 2012
`Ex. 2013
`Ex. 2014
`Ex. 2015
`
`
`Description
`
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Apple Inc.’s N.D. Cal. Patent L.R. 3-3 Disclosures (Invalidity
`Disclosures)
`Defendants HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation’s
`Preliminary Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions
`RESERVED
`Email requesting permission to file motion to terminate
`Ancora v. Samsung Fourth Amended Scheduling Order
`Expert Report of Suzanne Barber Regarding Invalidity of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,411,941
`Ancora v. HTC Order Setting Patent Case Schedule
`Samsung and LG Invalidity Contentions and Select Invalidity
`Charts
`Ancora v. HTC Affidavit of Service
`IAM Article Judge Albright Interview
`VLSI v. Intel Jury Verdict Form
`Ancora v. LG Rebuttal Report of David Martin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Aerohive Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2016-01757, paper 3 (PTAB Sep. 8, 2016) ...................................................... 6
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................3, 13
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................4, 18
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ...............................................16
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00854, paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2020) ..................................... 11, 12, 13
`Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC,
`Case No. 7:18-cv-00147, Dkt. 105 (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2020) ............................16
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ..........................................................................................15
`Dell Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2016-00569, paper 40 (PTAB Jan. 20, 2017) ................................................... 6
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, paper 19 (PTAB Sep. 6, 2017) ..................................................11
`HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc.,
`CBM2017-00054, paper 1 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017) ...............................................3, 4
`HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc.,
`CBM2017-00054, paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017) .............................................4, 12
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00583, paper 22 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2020) ..................................................18
`Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00729, paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2020) ..................................................... 6
`LG Elec., Inc. v. Cellular Commc'ns Equip. LLC,
`IPR2016-00711, paper 7 (PTAB May 13, 2016) .................................................... 8
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`IPR2020-00108, paper 14 (PTAB May 20, 2020) .................................................. 6
`Mylan Techs., Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC,
`IPR2017-00200, paper 23 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2017) .................................................... 6
`Par Pharma., Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC,
`IPR2017-01557, paper 4 (PTAB June 9, 2017) ...................................................... 6
`Par Pharma., Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC,
`IPR2017-01557, paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2017) .................................................. 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2018-01467, paper 19 (PTAB June 18, 2019) .................................................. 9
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) ..................................................11
`ZTE (USA) LLC, v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR 2019-00460, paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2019) ................................................. 7
`ZTE USA, Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC,
`IPR2016-00664, paper 10 (PTAB June 8, 2016) .................................................... 8
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................15
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ...................................................................................................19
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72 ....................................................................................................... 7
`Other Authorities
`PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, (Nov. 2019),
`https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated .......................... 7, 11, 16
`Regulations
`2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67 .............................................................................................16
`H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1 (2011) .........................................................................16
`S. Rep. No. 110–259 (2008) ....................................................................................16
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`HTC’s motion for joinder (the “Motion”) should not be granted because the
`
`Original Proceeding, IPR2020-01609, that HTC seeks to join will likely be
`
`terminated before the motion is fully briefed. If terminated, the Original Proceeding
`
`cannot serve as a proceeding to which this proceeding may be joined, so HTC’s
`
`motion for joinder will be moot. Further, if the Original Proceeding is terminated
`
`HTC’s petition must be denied because HTC was statutorily barred from petitioning
`
`for inter partes review when it filed its petition in this proceeding.
`
`At minimum, petitioners (collectively “TCL”) in the Original Proceeding
`
`should be terminated. Without an active petitioner in the Original Proceeding, the
`
`resulting delay will prevent completion of the Original Proceeding within the
`
`statutory one-year period after institution. The undue delay alone is dispositive of
`
`Petitioner’s motion for joinder.
`
`Alternatively, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution of
`
`HTC’s petition and deny HTC’s motion for joinder. The Board ordered Patent
`
`Owner to brief the relevant discretionary denial factors in this opposition, granting
`
`a 7-page extension and a one-day time extension for filing. See Paper 7 at 4.
`
`Under the Board’s precedential General Plastic factors HTC’s petition
`
`constitutes an improper serial attack on the ’941 patent. HTC has long been aware
`
`of the references asserted in its petition but chose not to assert grounds based on
`
`1
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`these references in its timely petition for covered business method review. The
`
`Board denied that petition, and HTC waited three years before filing its petition in
`
`this proceeding. Moreover, HTC moved to join after Patent Owner Ancora and
`
`original petitioner TCL had settled their dispute.
`
`HTC’s petition should alternatively be discretionarily denied under the
`
`Board’s precedential Fintiv factors. The grounds asserted in HTC’s petition will be
`
`subject to trial in district court proceedings long before a final decision can issue in
`
`this proceeding or the Original Proceeding. The ground asserted by HTC is asserted
`
`by LG Electronics Inc. (“LG”) in a co-pending lawsuit that will go to trial on June
`
`7, 2021. Patent Owner Ancora’s preliminary response is due on April 23, 2021,
`
`making it difficult for the Board to issue its decision on institution before that trial.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’941 patent has already withstood serial challenges before the Board and
`
`in the federal courts. Since 2008 the ’941 patent has been asserted in district court
`
`proceedings against accused infringers Microsoft Corporation, Toshiba America
`
`Information Systems Inc., Hewlett Packard Inc., Dell Inc., Apple Inc., LG
`
`Electronics Inc., HTC America, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Sony Mobile Communications AB. Responding
`
`to these accused infringers’ validity challenges, Patent Owner Ancora has
`
`2
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`successfully defended the ’941 patent in multiple forums. Relevant aspects of the
`
`’941 patent’s litigation history are described below.
`
`In 2009, at the USPTO Ancora defended the validity of the ’941 patent in ex
`
`parte Reexamination No. 90/010,560 over art asserted by Microsoft. The Examiner
`
`found claims 1–19 patentable without amendment. (Ex. 1001 at 9 (ex parte
`
`reexamination certificate).) Apple asserted several challenges to the ’941 patent’s
`
`validity. After the district court upheld the ’941 patent’s validity, the Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed that the claim terms “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” are not
`
`indefinite. Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 774 F.3d 732, 737 (Fed. Cir. 2014). At
`
`the district court, Apple publicly filed invalidity contentions on August 25, 2015 that
`
`identified asserted references and partial invalidity claim charts. (Ex. 2004 at 2, 3,
`
`31.) Apple’s asserted references included U.S. Patent Nos. 4,658,093 to Hellman
`
`and 5,892,906 to Chou, upon which HTC’s joinder petition relies.
`
`Ancora sued HTC for infringement of the ’941 patent on December 15, 2016
`
`and served the complaint on HTC on December 27, 2016. HTC first challenged the
`
`’941 patent by moving to dismiss for alleged failure to claim patent eligible subject
`
`matter. Shortly after, HTC mounted its second challenge by filing a petition for CBM
`
`review. HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc., Case No. CBM2017-00054, paper 1
`
`(PTAB Dec. 1, 2017). HTC’s CBM petition asserted the ’941 patent was invalid
`
`under § 101 for lack of patentable subject matter, under § 112 for indefiniteness and
`
`3
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`lack of written description, and under § 103 for obviousness over European Patent
`
`Application Publication No. EP0766165 in view of Desktop Management BIOS
`
`Specification Version 2.0 (Mar. 6, 1996). HTC, paper 1 at 24–25. HTC’s CBM
`
`petition did not assert the Hellman or Chou references disclosed by Apple. Id. The
`
`Board denied institution of HTC’s petition. HTC, paper 7.
`
`In the co-pending lawsuit, the court granted HTC’s motion to dismiss, but the
`
`Federal Circuit ultimately reversed on appeal. Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the claims are not invalid under § 101).
`
`After remand from the Federal Circuit, the parties proceeded with discovery and
`
`claim construction briefing. HTC served invalidity contentions on April 25, 2019
`
`that included the Hellman reference, along with U.S. Patent No. 5,933,498 to
`
`Schneck. (Ex. 2005 at 5.) After substantial delay, the district court held a Markman
`
`hearing on March 5, 2021. The district court case between Ancora and HTC remains
`
`pending. Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC, Case No. 2:16-CV-01919 (W.D.Wa.). The
`
`district court indicated at the March 5 hearing that it will issue a claim construction
`
`order in May 2021 (transcript not yet available). The court will then set a trial date
`
`at least 180 days after the court enters the claim construction order. (Ex. 2010.)
`
`Ancora sued several TCL entities for infringement of the ’941 patent on
`
`August 27, 2019 and served the complaint on TCL on September 16, 2019. TCL
`
`filed an IPR petition on September 10, 2020, in IPR2020-01609, referenced herein
`
`4
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`as the “Original Proceeding.” Ancora and TCL discussed settlement and had nearly
`
`come to terms as of February 5, 2021. Before the parties finalized terms, the Board
`
`instituted trial in the Original Proceeding on February 16, 2021. Ancora and TCL
`
`came to terms settling all litigation and e-mailed the Board on February 19, 2021
`
`requesting permission to file a motion to terminate the Original Proceeding. (Ex.
`
`2007.) HTC filed its joinder petition in this proceeding on the same day.
`
`Ancora sued LG and Samsung for infringement of the ’941 patent on June 21,
`
`2019, in two separate cases. Progress in both cases has been swift. On February 3,
`
`2020, LG and Samsung listed Hellman and Chou in their invalidity contentions. (Ex.
`
`2011 at 45-75, 116, 134-140.) Trial between Ancora and Samsung in the Western
`
`District of Texas is set for April 2021. (Ex. 2008.) LG’s expert witness asserted
`
`grounds of invalidity in the district court that include the same ground asserted by
`
`HTC in this proceeding. (Ex. 2009 at 251-267.) Trial between Ancora and LG is set
`
`to begin June 7, 2021. (Ex. 2008.)
`
`III. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER SHOULD BE DENIED
`FOR MOOTNESS OR BECAUSE IT WILL UNDULY DELAY THE
`ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
`
`A. The Board Should Terminate the Original Proceeding, Which
`Would Moot this Motion
`Patent Owner Ancora has settled with the petitioner, TCL, in the Original
`
`Proceeding, and the Board authorized the parties to file a corresponding motion to
`
`terminate. If terminated, the Original Proceeding cannot serve as a proceeding to
`
`5
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`which this proceeding may be joined. See, e.g., LG Elecs., Inc. v. Bell Northern
`
`Research, LLC, Case No. IPR2020-00108, paper 14 (PTAB May 20, 2020) (denying
`
`motion for joinder after original proceeding was terminated); Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v.
`
`Neodron Ltd., Case No. IPR2020-00729, paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2020) (denying
`
`motion for joinder because the original proceeding had not been instituted).
`
`Consequently, HTC’s motion for joinder may be moot.
`
`Termination of the Original Proceeding is appropriate, notwithstanding a
`
`pending motion for joinder by a time-barred petitioner. For example, in Mylan
`
`Techs., Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC, IPR2017-00200, paper 23 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2017),
`
`the Board fully terminated the proceeding despite the pending joinder request by the
`
`time-barred petitioner in Par Pharma., Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC, IPR2017-01557,
`
`paper 4 (PTAB June 9, 2017), paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2017). In Dell Inc. v.
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-00569, paper 40 (PTAB Jan. 20, 2017), the Board also
`
`fully terminated despite the pending joinder request in Aerohive Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01757, paper 3 (PTAB Sep. 8, 2016).
`
`If HTC or the petitioners in IPR2021-00581, IPR2021-00583, and IPR2021-
`
`00663 believed that the grounds asserted in the Original Proceeding had merit, they
`
`should have pursued them before the one-year time bar expired. The cited Hellman,
`
`Chou, and Schenck references were publicly available for each of the joinder
`
`petitioners. Reasonable searching would have identified these references within bar
`
`6
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`dates for these petitioners, as evidenced by Apple’s reliance on Hellman and Chou
`
`in its 2015 invalidity contentions. Further, Apple filed its invalidity contentions
`
`including Hellman and Chou publicly on August 25, 2015. (Ex. 2004 at 2, 3, 31.)
`
`Complete termination furthers the “strong policy reasons to favor settlement,”
`
`notwithstanding time-barred petitions such as the one filed here by HTC. See ZTE
`
`(USA) LLC, v. Seven Networks, LLC, Case No. IPR 2019-00460, paper 15 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 28, 2019) (denying ZTE’s request for rehearing of the order terminating the
`
`proceedings it sought to join). Ancora and TCL settled ongoing litigation to avoid
`
`unnecessary litigation costs. Only after that occurred did HTC file its petition and
`
`motion for joinder. As discussed further below, HTC’s me-too petition is
`
`demonstrably subject to discretionary denial under the Board’s precedent.
`
`The Board has discretion to terminate inter partes review proceedings after
`
`the parties file a settlement agreement. 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.72. “There are strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the
`
`parties to a proceeding.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, at 86 (Nov.
`
`2019),
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. The Board
`
`therefore terminates proceedings “after the filing of a settlement agreement, unless
`
`the Board already has decided the merits of the proceeding.” Id. Complete
`
`termination of the Original Proceeding is appropriate and consistent with the Board’s
`
`discretion to terminate. See, e.g., ZTE USA, Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Memory
`
`7
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`Architecture LLC, Case No. IPR2016-00664, paper 10 at 3 (PTAB June 8, 2016);
`
`LG Elec., Inc. v. Cellular Commc'ns Equip. LLC, Case No. IPR2016-00711, paper
`
`7 at 1−2 (PTAB May 13, 2016). In each of the ZTE and LG Electronic cases, the
`
`Board terminated immediately—notwithstanding third-party petitions and motions
`
`for joinder filed in related proceedings.
`
`If the Original Proceeding is terminated, HTC’s petition must be denied
`
`because HTC was statutorily barred from petitioning for inter partes review when it
`
`filed its petition in this proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Ancora filed a complaint on
`
`December 15, 2016 against HTC for infringement of the ’941 patent. Ancora
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wash.). Ancora
`
`served the complaint on HTC on December 27, 2016. (Ex. 2012.) This was more
`
`than a year before HTC filed its February 19, 2021 petition in this proceeding.
`
`Because complete termination of the Original Proceeding is appropriate,
`
`Petitioner’s motion would become moot and should therefore be denied.
`
`B. Undue Delay in the Original Proceedings Alternatively Requires
`Denying Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder
`Waiting for the Board to decide whether to institute this proceeding will cause
`
`extensive delay in the Original Proceeding. Patent Owner should not bear the burden
`
`of mitigating this delay, given that Petitioners chose not to assert these grounds until
`
`long past their one-year bar date and long after they were aware of the asserted art.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`If the Board chooses not to completely terminate the Original Proceeding,
`
`
`
`discovery cannot proceed in the original until a new petitioner stands in for TCL. In
`
`situations where the original parties request termination of a proceeding after new
`
`petitioners file motions for joinder, the Board sometimes terminates only the
`
`petitioner and vacates the scheduling order in the original proceeding because “no
`
`petitioner remains.” See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Immersion Corp.,
`
`IPR2018-01467, paper 19 (PTAB June 18, 2019). This effectively stays the original
`
`proceeding, giving the Board time to decide whether to institute and join a
`
`subsequent, identical petition. Id. A short delay may be acceptable in proceedings
`
`where the motion for joinder is filed long before the motion to terminate.
`
`But the Original Proceeding here will suffer an unduly long delay if the Board
`
`chooses to terminate TCL but maintain the Original Proceeding. Patent owner
`
`discovery has just begun and is already stalled in view of the settlement between
`
`TCL and Ancora. TCL agreed, in its settlement agreement with Ancora, not to
`
`pursue or assist others in pursuing its IPR. The Original Proceeding will remain at a
`
`standstill until the Board decides whether to institute this proceeding or the related
`
`joinder proceedings: IPR2021-00581, IPR2021-00583, and IPR2021-00663.
`
`Without an active petitioner, the resulting delay will prevent completion of
`
`the Original Proceeding within the statutory one-year period after institution. Patent
`
`Owner’s preliminary response in this proceeding is due on April 23, 2021. See Paper
`
`9
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`7 (Order on Conduct of the Proceeding). After receiving the patent owner
`
`preliminary response, the Board often takes up to three months to issue a decision
`
`on institution. The resulting delay in the Original Proceeding could therefore range
`
`from at least two months minimum to nearly five. This would prevent the Board
`
`from concluding this proceeding within one year of institution.
`
`Patent Owner has a unique need for a preliminary response in this proceeding
`
`and the related joinder proceedings. In the Original Proceeding, Patent Owner
`
`responded with a simple argument based on claim constructions issued in related
`
`district court proceedings. Patent Owner did not file an expert declaration. The Board
`
`rejected Patent Owner’s preliminary response argument in the Original Proceeding.
`
`In this proceeding, Patent Owner intends to offer a fulsome preliminary response
`
`showing the lack of merit in the asserted ground. Patent Owner has already served
`
`expert disclosures responding to LG’s identical district court contentions (Ex. 2015
`
`at 86-96) and expects similar arguments will be relevant in this proceeding.
`
`If HTC or the joinder petitioners wanted review of the grounds asserted in
`
`TCL’s petition, they could have filed timely petitions when they had the opportunity.
`
`They did not. The timing problems here were caused by Petitioner HTC’s own delay.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`THIS PETITION
`
`A. The General Plastic Factors Favor Discretionary Denial of HTC’s
`Joinder Petition
`Binding precedent favors exercising the Board’s discretion to deny HTC’s
`
`petition in this proceeding. The Board uses the seven General Plastic factors
`
`discussed below to evaluate “the potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter
`
`partes review process and the fundamental fairness of the process for all parties.”
`
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, paper 19 at
`
`16–17 (PTAB Sep. 6, 2017) (precedential); see also PTAB Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide, at 56–57. When different petitioners challenge the same patent, the
`
`Board considers the relationship, if any, between those petitioners when weighing
`
`the General Plastic factors. Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., Case No.
`
`IPR2019-00062, paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (denying institution
`
`of a follow-on petition filed by a co-defendant).
`
`Motions for joinder are not a second opportunity for review at the PTAB
`
`where the joinder petitioner has previously filed its own petition. Apple Inc. v. Uniloc
`
`2017 LLC, IPR2020-00854, paper 9 at 4 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2020) (precedential). In
`
`Uniloc 2017, the Board denied joinder even though the petitioner would serve as an
`
`“understudy” in the existing proceeding. The Board reasoned that “the copied
`
`petition is Petitioner’s second challenge to the patent, and should [original petitioner]
`
`11
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`settle, Petitioner would stand in to continue a proceeding that would otherwise be
`
`terminated.” Id. The same reasoning applies to HTC and the petitioners in the related
`
`joinder proceedings.
`
`1. Factor 1: Whether the Same Petitioner Previously Filed
`a Petition Directed to the Same Claims of the Same Patent,
`and
`
`Factor 3: Whether at the Time of Filing of the Second
`Petition the Petitioner Already Received the Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response to the First Petition or
`Received the Board’s Decision on Whether to Institute
`Review in the First Petition
`
`HTC already challenged the ’941 patent at the PTAB, in CBM2017-00054.
`
`The Board denied institution of HTC’s petition. HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc.,
`
`CBM2017-00054, paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017). Ancora filed a complete
`
`preliminary response in that matter, addressing the merits. In addition, HTC has
`
`benefitted from petitions and corresponding responses filed in other proceedings,
`
`including CBM2016-00023, filed by Apple, and IPR2020-01184, filed by Samsung.
`
`Both factors 1 and 3 weigh against institution.
`
`2. Factor 2: Whether at the Time of Filing of the First
`Petition the Petitioner Knew of the Prior Art Asserted in
`the Second Petition or Should Have Known of It
`
`HTC knew or should have known long ago about the art it now asserts. HTC
`
`has not argued that it was unaware of the art it now asserts in its petition. The relevant
`
`facts are indistinguishable from Apple’s circumstances in Uniloc 2017. See Uniloc
`
`12
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`2017, paper 9 at 5. There, despite filing an earlier petition for inter partes review,
`
`Apple failed to explain how and when it came to know about the prior art asserted
`
`in its joinder petition. Id. at 9. As discussed above, public record from Ancora v.
`
`Apple makes clear that the Hellman and Chou references were available and known
`
`to accused infringers of the ’941 patent at least by August 25, 2015. (See Ex. 2004
`
`at 2, 3, 31.) This factor weighs against institution.
`
`3. Factor 4: The Length of Time That Elapsed Between the
`Time the Petitioner Learned of the Prior Art Asserted in
`the Second Petition and the Filing of the Second Petition
`
`HTC has not identified the date when it learned of the art asserted in their
`
`petition. But HTC had ample time to identify art, long before filing its joinder
`
`petition. As discussed above, HTC was first served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’941 patent on December 27, 2016—more than four years before
`
`filing this petition. (Ex. 2012.) Moreover, Hellman and Chou were available and
`
`known to accused infringers of the ’941 patent as early as August 2015. (See Ex.
`
`2004 at 2, 3, 31.) This factor weighs against institution.
`
`4. Factor 5: Whether the Petitioner Provides Adequate
`Explanation for the Time Elapsed Between the Filings of
`Multiple Petitions Directed to the Same Claims of the
`Same Patent
`
`HTC has not explained the time elapsed since its earlier petition, which
`
`weighs against institution. HTC filed its petition in CBM2017-00054 on May 26,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Ancora’s Opposition to Petitioners’
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR2021-00570
`
`
`2017, nearly four years before filing its pending petition on February 19, 2021 in
`
`this proceeding. Accordingly, this factor weighs against institution.
`
`5. Factor 6: The Finite Resources of the Board
`
`As discussed in greater detail below, the resources spent by the Board on
`
`HTC’s petition would duplicate various district court efforts. Trial between Ancora
`
`and Samsung is set to occur in April 2021, and trial between Ancora and LG is set
`
`to occur beginning June 7, 2021. (Ex. 2008.) The LG trial will address art identical
`
`to that of this petition that LG asserted in its expert’s invalidity disclosures. (Ex.
`
`2009 at 251–267.) Also in parallel, the HTC court held its claim construction hearing
`
`March 5, 2021 expecting to issue a Markman decision in May 2021 such that HTC’s
`
`trial is likely to occur in early to mid-2022. (Ex. 2010.)
`
`In view of the significant resources already expended by Patent Owner,
`
`Petitioner, Samsung, and LG and the respective courts hearing these disputes, and
`
`in particular the same grounds in the LG trial, the Board’s resources would be wasted
`
`duplicating this analysis. Accordingly, this factor weighs against institution.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`