UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD., JIAWEI
`TECHNOLOGY (USA) LTD., SHENZHEN JIAWEI PHOTOVOLTAIC
`LIGHTING CO, LTD., ATICO INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD., ATICO
`INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., SMART SOLAR, INC., AND TEST RITE
`PRODUCTS CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`THIS PROCEEDING FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE
`TO IDENTIFY ALL REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD., JIAWEI
`TECHNOLOGY (USA) LTD., SHENZHEN JIAWEI PHOTOVOLTAIC
`LIGHTING CO, LTD., ATICO INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD., ATICO
`INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., SMART SOLAR, INC., AND TEST RITE
`PRODUCTS CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`THIS PROCEEDING FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE
`TO IDENTIFY ALL REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Table of Contents
`I.
`Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 1
`II. Petitioner, not Patent Owner, Bears the Burden of Establishing Compliance
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 312………………………………………………………... 2
`III. Newly Learned Facts Make This The Appropriate Time To Challenge
`Petitioner’s Standing Under § 312(a)…………………………………………. 3
`IV. Patent Owner’s Investigation Shows that Southwire Is A Real Party In
`Interest………………………………………………………………………… 5
`A. An RPI is one that controls or could control the IPR Proceedings ...... 5
`B. Southwire Exercised Control Over Coleman’s Petition By,
`Among Other Means, Acting Through Its Executive Vice
`President And General Counsel Floyd W. Smith ................................ 6
`C. Blurring of the Corporate Lines Between Coleman and
`Southwire ............................................................................................. 7
`V. The Failure To Disclose Southwire As An RPI Is A Substantive Defect And
`Any Remedy Of This Defect Would Require A New Filing Date……………. 11
`VI. This Proceeding Should be Terminated Because These Facts are More
`Compelling Than Those in Atlanta Gas and Galderma S.A…………………….. 12
`VII. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….. 14
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`Case IPR2014-00724, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2014) ................................... 4
`
`Galderma S.A. et al. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, et al.,
`
`IPR2014-01422, ppr 14 (March 5, 2015) ........................................... 6, 12, 13
`
`Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp.,
`
`27 F.3d 751 (1st Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 6
`
`In re Guan, Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding,
`
`Control No. 95/001,045, Decision Vacating Filing Date (Aug. 25, 2008) ..... 5
`
`Intellectual Ventures Mgnt., LLC v. Patents of Xilinx, Inc.,
`
`IPR2012-00018, Ppr 12 (Jan. 24, 2013) ........................................................11
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeco, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00678, Ppr 15 (Jul. 24, 2014) .........................................................12
`
`RPX v. Virnetx,
`
`IPR2014-00171, Paper 49 (Jun. 5, 2014) ......................................................... 6
`
`Samsung v. Black Hills Media,
`
`IPR2014-00717 Paper 8 (Aug. 7, 2014) .......................................................... 5
`
`Syntroleum Corp v. Neste Oil Oyj,
`
`IPR2013-00178, Paper 22 (Sep. 4, 2013) ........................................................ 5
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................. 4, 12, 15
`
`Regulations
`Inter Partes, Post Grant, and Covered Business Method Review Final Rules,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48695 (Aug. 14, 2012).................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`In May of 2015, Patent Owner learned that Southwire Company, LLC
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`I.
`
`(“Southwire”), which had acquired Coleman Cable LLC (“Coleman”) (a co-
`
`petitioner in these proceedings), in February of 2014, had its own exhibitor’s booth
`
`at the 2015 National Hardware Show listed as “Moonrays/Southwire,” “Moonrays”
`
`being the trademark used by Coleman for selling the products to those that Patent
`
`Owner had accused Coleman of infringing his 7,429,827 Patent (“827 Patent”),
`
`whose validity is at issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, Patent Owner learned
`
`that Mr. Floyd W. Smith, the person who signed the Power of Attorney for
`
`Coleman authorizing its participation as Petitioner was, in fact, Southwire’s
`
`Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel. See Paper 5; see also
`
`Declaration by Simon Nicholas Richmond (Hereinafter, “Dec.”) ¶¶ 10-11 citing
`
`Exs. 2042, 2043.
`
`Further evidence that has come to Patent Owner’s attentions since May of
`
`2015 which demonstrates that the purported parent-subsidiary relationship between
`
`Southwire and Coleman was, in fact, a merger that integrated operations and
`
`marketing, and blurred and eviscerated the corporate lines between these two
`
`companies, such that Southwire is a real party in interest and that it controls, or at
`
`least could control, this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`In view of the foregoing, and other evidence discussed herein demonstrating
`
`that Southwire is an unnamed real party in interest, Patent Owner moves to
`
`terminate this proceeding for Petitioner’s failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(2)’s requirement that all real parties in interest (“RPI”) be named.
`
`II. Petitioner, not Patent Owner, Bears the Burden of Establishing
`Compliance Under 35 U.S.C. § 312
`“A real party in interest is a party that ‘desires review’ of the patent at issue,
`
`and may be the petitioner itself, and/or it may be the party or parties at whose
`
`behest the petition has been filed. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator
`
`Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 at p. 7 (January 6, 2015), citing Zoll
`
`Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elec. North America Corp. et al., IPR2013-00606 Paper 13
`
`at 12 (March 20, 2014). “The Board generally accepts the petitioner’s
`
`identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition.” Atlanta
`
`Gas at p. 7, citing Zoll at 7. “[A]ccepting the identification of real parties in interest
`
`in a petition as accurate acts as a rebuttable presumption that benefits petitioners.”
`
`Id. And, “[t]he party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of
`
`producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the
`
`burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.” Id. at 8.
`
`Thus, once a patent owner presents evidence showing that a real party-in-interest
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`may have been omitted, the burden “remains with the petitioner to establish that it
`
`has complied with the statutory requirement to identify all the real parties in
`
`interest.” Id.
`
`Petitioner did not identify “Southwire” as a RPI in its Original Petition, its
`
`revised Petition, or its Updated Mandatory Notices. See Paper 10, pp. 2 -3 (June
`
`11, 2014); Paper 13, pp. 2-3 (June 30, 2014); Paper 18, p.2 (Sept. 10, 2014).
`
`Despite having at-least three separate opportunities to identify Southwire as an
`
`RPI, Petitioner repeatedly certified that all RPI’s “have at least been provided a
`
`draft of this petition and the opportunity to comment on it prior to filing this
`
`petition” and that it was “unaware of any real parties-in-interest beyond those
`
`previously listed.” Id.
`
`III. Newly Learned Facts Make This The Appropriate Time To Challenge
`Petitioner’s Standing Under § 312(a)
`A challenge to the RPI can be properly raised at any time when new facts
`
`come to light which conflict with Petitioner’s certifications before the Board. Inter
`
`Partes, Post Grant, and Covered Business Method Review Final Rules, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48680, 48695 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“After institution, standing issues may still be
`
`raised during the trial.”) (emphasis added). If all real parties in interest have not
`
`been identified in the petition, there is no jurisdictional basis for the IPR. See 35
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a) and 315(b); Zoll at 10 (A failure to identify all RPIs violates a
`
`statutory requirement, such that the petition is incomplete and trial cannot be
`
`instituted).
`
`Though Patent Owner has known since early 2014 that Southwire had
`
`acquired Coleman, making it a subsidiary, but that fact alone was clearly
`
`insufficient on its own to make Southwire a real party in interest. 1 Accordingly,
`
`patent owner accepted Petitioner’s representations that all RPIs had been identified
`
`at face value. However, at the National Hardware Show held last month (May 5 -
`
`7, 2015), Patent Owner noticed that Southwire (not Coleman) was listed in the
`
`directory as an exhibitor for the “Moonrays” branded solar garden light products
`
`previously exhibited by Coleman.. See Dec. ¶ 4, citing Ex. 2040 (showing
`
`
`1 Patent Owner did not previously allege that Southwire was an RPI based
`
`merely on a parent-subsidiary relationship, since such would have been clearly
`
`non-meritorious, and potentially frivolous. See Compass Bank v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC, Case IPR2014-00724, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2014)
`
`(Demonstration of a parent-subsidiary relationship, without more, is insufficient to
`
`establish that the non-party is a RPI).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`hardware show map listing “Moonrays/Southwire” at a single booth).2 This
`
`information conflicted with Patent Owner’s prior understanding that Southwire
`
`was merely the parent of a wholly owned, but independently functioning,
`
`subsidiary Coleman, spurring an investigation by Patent Owner. The facts
`
`uncovered in that investigation show that, in fact, Southwire is an unnamed RPI,
`
`rebutting the presumption that Petitioner named all the RPIs.
`
`IV. Patent Owner’s Investigation Shows that Southwire Is A Real Party In
`Interest
`A. An RPI is one that controls or could control the IPR Proceedings
` “A party that funds or directly controls an IPR or PGR petition or
`
`proceeding constitutes a real party-in-interest.” Samsung v. Black Hills Media,
`
`IPR2014-00717 Paper 8 at 2 (Aug. 7, 2014). With respect to the control inquiry, a
`
`relevant consideration is whether the alleged RPI “could have exercised control”
`
`over a party’s participation in a proceeding. Syntroleum Corp v. Neste Oil Oyj,
`
`IPR2013-00178, Paper 22 at 6 (Sep. 4, 2013). The RPX panel also relied upon In re
`
`Guan, Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding, Control No. 95/001,045, Decision
`
`2 Patent Owner also later discovered that Southwire’s Twitter feed on May 6,
`
`2015, solicited visits to the “Moonrays” booth at the Show. Dec. ¶ 5, citing Ex.
`
`5
`
`
`
`2033.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`Vacating Filing Date (Aug. 25, 2008), for the proposition that an entity cannot be
`
`named as a sole RPI if it receives a suggestion to include a particular invalidity
`
`argument in a petition or if it is reimbursed for costs associated with the petition by
`
`another entity. RPX v. Virnetx, IPR2014-00171, Paper 49 at 7 (Jun. 5, 2014).
`
`“There is no brightline test for determining the necessary quantity or degree
`
`of participation to qualify as a real party-in-interest . . . based on the control
`
`concept. Evidence that a non-party wields substantial control in a matter may be
`
`overt or covert, and the evidence of it may be direct or circumstantial—so long as
`
`the evidence as a whole shows that the nonparty possessed effective control over a
`
`party’s conduct…as measured from a practical, as opposed to a purely theoretical,
`
`standpoint.” Galderma S.A. et al. v. Allergan Industries, SAS, et al., IPR2014-
`
`01422, Paper 14 at 7 (March 5, 2015), citing Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48,759 and Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759 (1st Cir.
`
`1994). This standard is clearly met here.
`
`B. Southwire Exercised Control Over Coleman’s Petition By, Among
`Other Means, Acting Through Its Executive Vice President And
`General Counsel Floyd W. Smith
`A factor considered is the use of the same law firm by the petitioner and the
`
`unnamed party. Zoll at 10; RPX at 6. Here, when Mr. Floyd W. Smith signed
`
`Petitioner Coleman’s POA, authorizing its participation in the IPR as a Petitioner,
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`he identified himself only as “Secretary” of Coleman -- not disclosing that he was,
`
`at the same time, Southwire’s Executive Vice President, Secretary and General
`
`Counsel, a role that he has held since 2006. See Paper 5; see also Dec. ¶¶ 10-11,
`
`citing Exs. 2034, 2035. As is now known, Smith was also involved in Southwire’s
`
`acquisition of Coleman, which took place in February 2014. Dec. ¶ 13, citing Ex.
`
`2044. Since Mr. Smith both reviewed the IPR Petition and signed the POA on
`
`behalf of Coleman (as Southwire’s proxy), he undeniably had control over: (a)
`
`whether or not an IPR was filed by Coleman; and (b) what arguments were
`
`presented and/or excluded from the IPR petition. Accordingly, Southwire clearly
`
`had the necessary control over Coleman’s participation in the IPR.
`
`C. Blurring of the Corporate Lines Between Coleman and Southwire
`Patent Owner’s investigation also showed that, in fact, Southwire’s
`
`acquisition of Coleman was intended, from the start, i.e., before the filing of the
`
`pending IPR, as an intermixing integration of the two companies, not merely the
`
`creation of a mere parent-subsidiary relationship. Dec. ¶ 14, citing Ex. 2045. In
`
`February of 2014, Southwire and Coleman announced that “Now, the real work
`
`begins with integrating these two organizations… One of the most exciting
`
`integration projects …is the combined company’s ability to offer Coleman Cable
`
`products to Southwire customers and vice versa.” Dec. ¶ 15, citing Ex. 2046.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`Southwire’s use of the terms “integration” and “combined company”
`
`unequivocally demonstrates that Southwire and Coleman intentionally set out to
`
`mesh together as a single functioning unit, erasing the lines of corporate
`
`separateness – and that is what was then accomplished.
`
`The evisceration of corporate separateness goes beyond that the actions of
`
`Southwire’s General Counsel and Secretary to the Board, i.e., Floyd W. Smith, as
`
`discussed supra. Dec. ¶¶ 10-11, citing Exs. 2042, 2043. In April 2014, a
`
`submission on behalf of Coleman with the State of Florida was signed by
`
`Southwire’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and identified
`
`Coleman’s mailing address as that of Southwire and gave a contact email address
`
`of heather.foster@southwire.com. Dec. ¶¶ 16-18, citing Exs. 2047, 2048, 2062.
`
`Further, in June 2014, at about the same time Petitioner was repeatedly
`
`certifying to the Board that all RPIs had been named (while leaving out
`
`Southwire), Southwire and Coleman were advertising to the industry their union as
`
`“one” in a full-page advertisement that read “Southwire + Coleman Cable…Now
`
`connected as one.” Dec. ¶ 19, citing Ex. 2049. (Emphasis added.)
`
`This announced unitary integration was not just advertising; it was put into
`
`practice in corporate management and operations. For example, the Linkedin.com
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`profile of Ms. Lisa Brigg shows that, in June of 2014, her employment role
`
`changed from being in “Accounts Receivable” at “Coleman Cable” to “Import
`
`Coordinator” at “Coleman Cable/Southwire.” Dec. ¶ 20, citing Ex. 2050. In
`
`August of 2014, Ms. Jo Van, holding the title of Executive VP for Distribution
`
`Group at Coleman, announced a price increase in August 2014 to Southwire’s and
`
`Coleman’s customers in a single announcement, made on Southwire letterhead.
`
`Dec. ¶ 21, citing Ex. 2051. Though, Ms. Jo Van’s LinkedIn® profile identifies her
`
`current position as “Sr VP” at Southwire, Coleman’s website lists her as an
`
`Executive VP for its Distribution Group. Dec. ¶¶ 22-23, citing Exs. 2052, 2053.
`
`Sharing an import coordinator and executive level management of distribution is
`
`demonstrative of the functional integration of operations from Southwire and
`
`Coleman to a “combined company.3”
`
`Coleman’s and Southwire’s corporate oneness doesn’t end at sharing
`
`
`3 A cursory search of LinkedIn® profile reveals many additional individuals
`
`having common roles at both Coleman and Southwire. Dec. ¶ 24, citing Ex. 2054.
`
`Further, on August 7, 2014, Southwire announced the retirement of a Coleman
`
`executive. Dec. ¶ 25, citing Ex. 2055.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`officers and employees. As Patent Owner first learned in its investigation
`
`following the May of 2015 National Hardware Show, Southwire has been directly
`
`marketing Coleman products, under its own name, including products accused of
`
`infringement of his Patents. Dec. ¶ 26, citing Ex. 2056. Both Coleman and
`
`Southwire purport to own the same “Moonrays” trademark that is used on their
`
`solar lights, including the solar lights accused of infringing the patent in question
`
`in this proceeding. Dec. ¶¶ 27-28, citing Exs. 2057, 2058. Southwire also sells
`
`products accused of infringing the patents, under its own name, on Amazon.com.
`
`Dec. ¶ 29, citing Ex. 2059.
`
`U.S. Customs records reveal shipments of “Solar Garden Lights” from
`
`Winchance Solar Fujian Technology (a named defendant in the District Court
`
`litigation) to “Coleman Cable Southwire International.” Dec. ¶ 30, citing Ex.
`
`2060. Such shipments date back to, at-least, March 2015. Dec. ¶ 31, citing Ex.
`
`2061. The placement of orders for those products must have taken place many
`
`months earlier. The fact that Winchance makes a single shipment of solar garden
`
`lights to “Coleman” and “Southwire: leaves no doubt as to the evisceration of
`
`corporate boundaries between Coleman and Southwire.
`
`The foregoing newly discovered facts go well beyond the Patent Owner
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`rebutting the presumption that all the RPI were named; rather, they clearly
`
`establish that, from prior to the instant IPR petition’s filing and prior to Petitioner’s
`
`prior amendments of the RPIs, and still today, Southwire and Coleman have been
`
`acting as “one,” have had identical interests in this proceeding, and that Southwire
`
`has controlled or could have exercised control over this proceeding. Under these
`
`circumstances, Southwire is a real party-in-interest to this proceeding that needed
`
`to be identified to satisfy the explicit jurisdictional requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(b)(2).
`
`V. The Failure To Disclose Southwire As An RPI Is A Substantive Defect
`And Any Remedy Of This Defect Would Require A New Filing Date.
`A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, among other
`
`requirements, the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” Intellectual
`
`Ventures Mgnt., LLC v. Patents of Xilinx, Inc., IPR2012-00018, Paper 12 at 1 (Jan.
`
`24, 2013) (emphasis added). Because the failure to disclose an RPI is a substantive
`
`defect, any remedy of the defect requires a new filing date. Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services Inc. v. Westerngeco, LLC, IPR2014-00678, Paper 15 at p. 4 (Jul. 24,
`
`2014). In this case, however, assignment of a new filing would be futile since the
`
`petition would then be time-barred. Zoll, IPR2013-00606, p. 12.
`
`The Petition in the present IPR was filed on the one year deadline date (June
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`11, 2014) from when one of the RPIs (Menards, Inc.) was served. In fact, nearly all
`
`of the Petitioning entities had been served with a copy of a Complaint, accusing
`
`them of infringing the patent in or around June 2013. Paper 14, fn. 4. Thus,
`
`according a filing date later than the currently accorded date would be cause for
`
`termination of the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as time barred, which holds
`
`that “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.” Accordingly, termination of the proceedings, rather
`
`than merely according a new filing date, is necessary.
`
`VI. This Proceeding Should be Terminated Because These Facts are More
`Compelling Than Those in Atlanta Gas and Galderma S.A.
`In Atlanta Gas, the Board found that a parent company was an unnamed real
`
`party-in-interest where its subsidiary petitioner’s “Vice President, Supply Chain
`
`and Fleet” held the same title in the parent company, conducted negotiations with
`
`the patent owner on behalf of both petitioner and parent, and generally blurred the
`
`distinctions between the parent and its subsidiaries. Atlanta Gas Light Co. at 2–6.
`
`Here, the fact pattern is even more compelling. The blurring of the corporate lines
`
`between Coleman and Southwire includes overlapping officers, employee and
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`corporate functions. Here, the General Counsel of the parent (Southwire) initiated
`
`this proceeding on behalf of the wholly owned subsidiary (Coleman); there are
`
`public statements regarding intent to integrate operations to become “as one;”
`
`common importation as Coleman/Southwire of potentially infringing solar light
`
`products from a defendant named as an accused infringer in the related District
`
`Court proceedings; and that the parent company (Southwire) offers for sale, under
`
`its own name, products that are similar with respects material to products its
`
`subsidiary (Coleman) has been accused of infringing. Here, there is not merely a
`
`blurring of the corporate lines but an evisceration of the corporate boundaries, in
`
`general and with respect to parties’ interest in the infringement of this Patent and
`
`the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`Furthermore, as in Galderma S.A., just like “Nestlé made good on its
`
`promise to operate Galderma as the pharmaceutical arm of Nestlé Skin Health
`
`S.A.,” Southwire made good on its promise to integrate operations such that
`
`“combined company’s ability to offer Coleman Cable products to Southwire
`
`customers and vice versa” came to fruition with Southwire marketing Coleman
`
`products and with Southwire manufacturing infringing products, the like of which
`
`Coleman had previously been accused of infringing, in the parallel District Court
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`proceedings.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Even if correction of Petitioner’s failure to name Southwire as an additional
`
`RPI was possible at this time, and it is not because such correction would render
`
`the Petition time-barred, correction would not be an appropriate exercise of this
`
`Board’s discretion. As the Board knows, Petitioner previously sought leave to
`
`name three (3) additional RPIs on the basis of asserted clerical error, which request
`
`was unopposed by Patent Owner and granted by the Board in the parallel IPR case
`
`IPR2014-00935. See Paper 9. Here, however, since Southwire’s Executive Vice
`
`President, Secretary and General Counsel, Mr. Floyd W. Smith, signed the Power
`
`of Attorney for Coleman authorizing its participation as Petitioner, the exclusion of
`
`Southwire as a RPI was clearly no accident. Southwire should not be allowed to
`
`avoid the estoppel effects of 35 U.S. § 315 by the convenient use of Coleman as a
`
`proxy, and then escape the consequences of its actions by just “correcting” it once
`
`it has been caught.
`
`VII. Conclusion
`For at least the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner requests that the Board
`
`terminate this proceeding for Petitioner’s failure to identify Southwire as a real
`
`14
`
`party in interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`SHIELLS LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`__/Theodore F. Shiells______
`Theodore F. Shiells
`Reg. No. 31,569
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`SHIELLS LAW FIRM P.C.
`Pacific Place Building
`1910 Pacific Avenue - Suite 14000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Appendix of Cited Exhibits
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2040 National Hardware Show Exhibitor Directory
`
`2041 Southwire Twitter Feed from May 6, 2015
`
`2042 Floyd W. Smith's LinkedIn profile
`
`2043 Floyd W. Smith's Role at Southwire
`
`2044 Smith's Role in Acquisition of Coleman - SEC
`submission
`2045 Southwire's Press Release dated 2/11/2014
`
`2046 Southwire's Press Release dated 2/17/2014
`
`2047 Coleman's Florida filing with Southwire contact
`info
`2048 Guyton Cochrane's Role at Southwire
`
`2049 Coleman/Southwire Announcement "Now
`connected as one"
`2050 Lisa Brigg - Importer
`
`2051
`
`Joint Price Increase by Coleman Exec on Southwire
`Letterhead
`2052 Kathy Jo Van as Exec for Southwire
`
`2053 Kathy Jo Van as Exec for Coleman
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2054 LinkedIn Profiles showing shared Southwire and
`Coleman employees
`2055 Retirement of Coleman Executive announced by
`Southwire
`"Southwire Special Pricing" ad listing Coleman
`Products
`2057 Southwire claiming Moonrays
`
`2056
`
`2058 Co-ownership of Moonrays Mark by Coleman and
`Southwire
`2059 Southwire’s Solar Garden Lights being sold on
`Amazon.com
`2060 Garden Solar Light shipment from Winchance to
`Coleman-Southwire
`2061 Moonray Garden Solar Lights consigned to
`Coleman-Southwire
`2062 Heather Foster's LinkedIn Profile
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on June 25, 2015, a copy of the PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`TERMINATE THIS PROCEEDING FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO
`
`IDENTIFY ALL REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST was served on Lead and
`
`Backup Attorneys for Petitioner, via the consented to method of email to the
`
`following email addresses:
`
`mark.nelson@dentons.com, lissi.mojica@dentons.com,
`
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com, daniel.valenzuela@dentons.com, and
`
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com,
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`______/Theodore F. Shiells/________
`Theodore F. Shiells
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`18
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
