`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`CBM2015-00031, Paper 35
`CBM2015-00032, Paper 35
`CBM2015-00132, Paper 15
`CBM2015-00133, Paper 10
`Entered: December 16, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00132
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU,
`GREGG I. ANDERSON and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00132
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
` On December 1, 2015, we instituted review of claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, 21,
`
`and 22 in this proceeding. Paper 14, 11. We further ordered that Petitioner
`
`Google Inc.’s (“Petitioner Google”) challenge to claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 based
`
`on 35 U.S.C. § 101 is consolidated with CBM2015-00031, and Google’s
`
`challenge to claims 14, 21, and 22 based on § 101 is consolidated with
`
`CBM2015-00032. Id.
`
`On December 14, 2015, via teleconference attended by counsel for
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner Apple”), Petitioner Google, Samsung Electronics
`
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Patent Owner Smartflash LLC
`
`(“Smartflash”)1, Petitioner Google and Petitioner Apple requested that
`
`Petitioner Google’s challenge to claims 9 and 21 in CBM2015-00132 be
`
`consolidated with CBM2015-00133, instead of with CBM2015-00031 and
`
`CBM2015-00032, respectively. Smartflash did not object to the request.
`
`We granted the request.
`
`
`
`Therefore, we revise our institution decision in CBM2015-00132 as
`
`follows. Petitioner Google’s challenge to claims 9 and 21 in CBM2015-
`
`00132 is no longer consolidated with CBM2015-00031 and CBM2015-
`
`00032, respectively. The consolidation of the remaining challenges in
`
`CBM2015-00132 with CBM2015-00031 and CBM2015-00032 remains
`
`unchanged. Petitioner’s Google’s challenge to claims 9 and 21 in
`
`CBM2015-00132 is consolidated with CBM2015-00133 (“consolidated
`
`proceeding”).
`
`
`1 Smartflash shall file a copy of the transcript of the December 14, 2015,
`teleconference in CBM2015-00031, CBM2015-00032, CBM2015-00132,
`and CBM2015-00133.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00132
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`The Scheduling Order in place for CBM2015-00133 shall govern the
`
`consolidated proceedings. Trial will proceed on the basis of the argument
`
`and evidence presented by Petitioner Apple in CBM2015-00133 without
`
`submission of additional evidence from Petitioner Google. Any additional
`
`evidence, papers, and briefing filed on behalf of Petitioner Apple and
`
`Petitioner Google in the consolidated proceedings shall be filed by Petitioner
`
`Apple, as a consolidated filing, unless we provide authorization otherwise,
`
`as noted below. Petitioner Google shall not file any separate papers or
`
`briefing in these consolidated proceedings without authorization from the
`
`Board. In addition, Petitioner Google shall not seek any additional
`
`discovery beyond that sought by Petitioner Apple. Petitioner Apple and
`
`Petitioner Google shall resolve any disputes between them concerning the
`
`conduct of the consolidated proceedings and shall contact the Board if any
`
`such matters cannot be resolved. No additional burdens shall be placed on
`
`Smartflash as a result of the consolidation.
`
`For the reasons given, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the challenge to claims 9 and 21 in CBM2015-00132
`
`is no longer consolidated with CBM2015-00031 and CBM2015-00032,
`
`respectively;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the challenge to claims 9 and 21 in
`
`CBM2015-00132 is consolidated with CBM2015-00133;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground(s) on which CBM2015-00133
`
`was instituted remains unchanged, except to the extent that a challenge to
`
`claims 9 and 21 are consolidated with the proceeding, and no other grounds
`
`are instituted in the consolidated proceeding;
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00132
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place for
`
`CBM2015-00133 shall govern the consolidated proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the record in CBM2015-00133 will
`
`remain unchanged;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, throughout the consolidated proceeding,
`
`any paper, except for a motion that does not involve the other party, shall be
`
`filed by Petitioner Apple, as a single, consolidated filing on behalf of
`
`Petitioner Apple and Petitioner Google, and Petitioner Apple will identify
`
`each such filing as a consolidated filing;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that except as otherwise agreed by counsel,
`
`Petitioner Apple will conduct cross-examination and other discovery on
`
`behalf of Petitioner Apple and Petitioner Google and that Patent Owner is
`
`not required to provide separate discovery responses or additional deposition
`
`time as a result of the consolidation;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings in the consolidated
`
`proceedings are to be made in CBM2015-00133;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`
`into the records of CBM2015-00031, CBM2015-00032, CBM2015-00132,
`
`and CBM2015-00133; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in CBM2015-00133
`
`shall be changed to reflect consolidation with this proceeding in accordance
`
`with the attached example.
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00132
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Raymond Nimrod
`raynimrod@quinnemauel.com
`
`Andrew Holmes
`QE-SF-PTAB-Service@quinnemanuel.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Smartflash-cbm@dbjg.com
`
`Wayne Helge
`whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00132
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC. and GOOGLE, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-001331
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The challenge to claims 9 and 21 based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 in CBM2015-
`00132 has been consolidated with this proceeding.