throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 12
` Entered: August 24, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner” or “Samsung”)
`filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–18 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 (Ex. 1001, “the ’678 patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Concurrently with its Petition, Samsung filed a Motion for
`Joinder with Sony Corp. v. Raytheon Co., Case IPR2016-00209 (“the Sony
`209 IPR”). Paper 3 (“Mot.). Raytheon Company (“Patent Owner”) filed an
`Opposition to Samsung’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 9 (“Opp.”)) and
`Samsung filed a Reply (Paper 10 (“Reply”)). Patent Owner also filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–18 of the ’678 patent and grant Samsung’s Motion for Joinder.
`II. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The ’678 patent has been asserted in Raytheon Co. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.), and Raytheon Co. v. Sony
`Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00342 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 2–3; Paper 8, 2.
`Sony Corporation (“Sony”) has challenged the ’678 patent in the
`Sony 209 IPR. Pet. 1; Paper 8, 2. In the Sony 209IPR, we instituted inter
`partes review of claims 1–18 of the ’678 patent on the following grounds:
`Reference(s)
`Basis Claim(s) Challenged
`Liu1
`§ 102
`1–4, 6, 7, 10, 11
`Liu and Black2
`§ 103
`2–4, 11
`Liu and Riseman3
`§ 103
`5, 12–16
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 4,422,091, issued Dec. 20, 1983 (Ex. 1003)
`2 U.S. Patent No. 4,426,768, issued Jan. 24, 1984 (Ex. 1007)
`3 U.S. Patent No. 4,106,050, issued Aug. 8, 1978 (Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`Basis Claim(s) Challenged
`Reference(s)
`§ 103
`8
`Liu and Oldham4
`§ 103
`10
`Liu and Wen5
`§ 103
`9
`Liu, Wen, and Ying6
`§ 103
`17
`Liu, Riseman, and Kusunoki7
`§ 103
`18
`Liu, Riseman, and Oldham
`See IPR2016-00209, slip op. at 23–24 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2016) (Paper 12)
`(“Sony 209 Dec.”).
`Sony also has challenged the ’678 patent in Sony Corp. v. Raytheon
`Co., Case IPR2015-01201 (inter partes review instituted as to claims 1–18).
`Pet. 3; Paper 8, 2. Samsung also has challenged the ’678 patent in Samsung
`Electronics, Co. v. Raytheon Co., Case IPR2016-00739 (decision pending).
`Paper 8, 2.
`III.
`INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same grounds of
`unpatentability as those on which we instituted review in the Sony 209 IPR.
`Compare Pet. 3–4, 21–60, with Sony 209 Dec. 23–24. Indeed, as Samsung
`notes, the Petition filed in this proceeding is “substantively identical to the
`Sony [209] Petition, containing only minor differences related to formalities
`of a different party filing the petition.” Mot. 5. Samsung further asserts that
`“there are no changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments
`presented in the Sony [209] Petition.” Id. Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response does not substantively address the asserted grounds, but reiterates
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 4,681,718, issued July 21, 1987 (Ex. 1005)
`5 U.S. Patent No. 3,846,198, issued Nov. 5, 1974 (Ex. 1004)
`6 U.S. Patent No. 3,864,819, issued Feb. 11, 1975 (Ex. 1006)
`7 JP Appl. Pub. 3-108776, published May 8, 1991 (Kusunoki is a Japanese-
`language reference (Ex. 1014); citations to Kusunoki are to the certified
`English translation submitted by Petitioner (Ex. 1008))
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`the arguments presented in its Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder,
`discussed below.
`For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the
`Sony 209 IPR, we determine that the information presented in Samsung’s
`Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that (a) claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are anticipated by Liu,
`(b) claims 2–4 and 11 would have been obvious in view of Liu and Black,
`(c) claims 5 and 12–16 would have been obvious in view of Liu and
`Riseman, (d) claim 8 would have been obvious in view of Liu and Oldham,
`(e) claim 10 would have been obvious in view of Liu and Wen, (f) claim 9
`would have been obvious in view of Liu, Wen, and Ying, (g) claim 17 would
`have been obvious in view of Liu, Riseman, and Kusunoki , and (h) claim 18
`would have been obvious in view of Liu, Riseman, and Oldham. See Sony
`209 Dec. 11–23. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on the
`same grounds as those on which we instituted review in the Sony 209 IPR.
`We do not institute inter partes review on any other grounds.
`IV. GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`The Petition and Motion for Joinder in this proceeding were accorded
`a filing date of April 28, 2016. See Paper 6. Thus, Petitioner’s Motion for
`Joinder is timely because joinder was requested no later than one month
`after the institution date of the Sony 209 IPR, i.e., March 29, 2016. See
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); Mot. 3; see also 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(b) (indicating that the time limitation set forth therein “shall not apply
`to a request for joinder under subsection (c)”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review
`proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads:
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in
`his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`review any person who properly files a petition under section 311
`that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes
`review under section 314.
`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 Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).
`As noted, the Petition in this case asserts the same grounds of
`unpatentability on which we instituted review in the Sony 209 IPR. See
`Mot. 2–5; Pet. 3–4, 21–60; Sony 209 Dec. 23–24. Samsung also relies on
`the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by Sony. See
`Mot. 4–6. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the petition filed by
`Sony with respect to the grounds on which review was instituted in the
`Sony 209 IPR. See id. at 2–3. Thus, this inter partes review does not
`present any ground or matter not already at issue in the Sony 209 IPR.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`If joinder is granted, Samsung “agrees to take an ‘understudy’ role” in
`the joined proceeding,8 absent termination of Sony as a party. Id. at 7–8. In
`particular, Samsung agrees that, in the joined proceeding,
`(a) all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be
`consolidated with [the filings of the petitioner in the Sony IPR],
`unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve [the
`petitioner in the Sony IPR]; (b) [Petitioner] shall not be permitted
`to raise any new grounds not already instituted by the Board in
`the [Sony IPR], or introduce any argument or discovery not
`already introduced by [the petitioner in the Sony IPR];
`(c) [Petitioner] shall be bound by any agreement between [Patent
`Owner] and [the petitioner in the Sony IPR] concerning
`discovery and/or depositions; and (d) [Petitioner] at deposition
`shall not receive any direct, cross examination or redirect time
`beyond that permitted for [the petitioner in the Sony IPR] alone
`under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between [Patent
`Owner] and [the petitioner in the Sony IPR].
`Id. at 7 (quoting Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novartis AG, Case IPR2014-00550,
`slip op. at 5 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2015) (Paper 38) (alterations in Petitioner’s
`Motion)). Because Samsung expects to participate only in a limited
`capacity, Samsung submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for
`the Sony 209 IPR. Mot. 8; Reply 2–3.
`In its Opposition, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s Motion
`“abuses the IPR process and impairs judicial economy.” Opp. 1. In
`particular, Patent Owner argues that the present Petition is the fourth in a
`“coordinated series of petitions” filed by Sony and Samsung (as co-
`defendants in the underlying litigation proceedings). Id.; see id. at 3.
`
`
`8 Samsung represents that Sony “has no position as to [Samsung] joining in
`an ‘understudy’ role” in the Sony 209 IPR. Mot. 8.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`Patent Owner cites several decisions in which, according to Patent
`Owner, the Board has “repeatedly and consistently exercised its discretion to
`deny duplicative, late-filed petitions that rely on the same prior art to
`challenge the same claims.” Id. at 5–7. The cited decisions are not
`precedential, and we are not bound by those panel decisions. Nor do we
`agree that the Board has “repeatedly and consistently” denied such petitions
`as Patent Owner suggests. Instead, our review of the decisions cited by
`Patent Owner reveals that each panel’s determination to exercise its
`discretion to deny a petition is based on the specific facts and circumstances
`of each particular proceeding.
`In Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, cited by
`Patent Owner, the panel denied joinder, pointing to the following factors as
`guiding the decision: (1) the second-filed petition added additional
`substantive issues to the earlier proceeding—namely, the question of
`whether all real-parties-in-interest had been identified; (2) Petitioner did not
`address how joinder would impact the schedule of several related inter
`partes review proceedings; and (3) nearly all of the challenged claims had
`previously been determined to be unpatentable in an earlier final written
`decision. Case IPR2014-00702, slip op. at 4–8 (PTAB July 24, 2014)
`(Paper 12). The instant Petition, however, adds no additional substantive
`issues to the earlier proceeding, Samsung has agreed to take on only an
`understudy role in the Sony 209 IPR, thus, no change to the schedule is
`necessary, and no final written decision has been issued by the Board
`regarding the ’678 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`In ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc., the earlier proceeding
`was terminated prior to the Board’s decision whether to join the later-filed
`petition thereto. Case IPR2013-00454, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2013)
`(Paper 13). The Sony 209 IPR, however, is still pending.
`In Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp., also cited by Patent
`Owner, the second Petitioner did not file a motion for joinder with the earlier
`filed Petition, but instead asked the panel to institute trial and then hold the
`grounds in abeyance until and unless a settlement of the related earlier-filed
`proceeding occurred. Case IPR2015-00593, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Aug. 14,
`2015) (Paper 9). Similarly, in Initiative for Responsibility In Drug Pricing
`LLC v. Wyeth LLC, a motion for joinder was not filed. Case IPR2014-
`01259, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2015) (Paper 8) (denying institution
`based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), and noting that the earlier-filed trial was at a
`late stage—i.e., oral hearing had already occurred and the statutory deadline
`for issuing a final written decision was approximately two months away—
`and Petitioner in the later-filed petition was not time-barred from filing a
`later petition in the unlikely case that a final written decision did not issue
`due to settlement of the earlier trial).
`In the remaining cases cited by Patent Owner, the later-filed petitions
`were not substantively identical to the earlier-filed petitions, as is the case
`here, but instead included different and/or additional grounds. See
`Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., Case IPR2014-00487, slip op. at 5–7
`(PTAB Sept. 11, 2014) (Paper 8) (denying joinder because the later-filed
`petition was a “do-over” from an earlier petition filed by same Petitioner; the
`earlier-filed proceeding was 2 months from oral hearing and on different
`grounds); Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`Case IPR2014-00436, slip op. at 11–15 (PTAB June 19, 2014) (Paper 17)
`(declining institution on some asserted grounds based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`(as “involv[ing] the same, or substantially the same, prior art . . . and the
`same, or substantially the same, arguments previously presented” in the
`earlier petition), and denying other asserted grounds for substantive reasons;
`finding joinder motion, thus, moot); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
`Cambridge Ltd., Case IPR2013-00324, slip op. at 2–7 (PTAB Nov. 21,
`2013) (Paper 19) (denying joinder because same petitioner filed similar, but
`different, grounds after several months delay; Patent Owner will address
`new reference in motion to amend in the earlier proceeding).
`On the other hand, as Petitioner notes, the “Board routinely grants
`motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder introduces identical
`arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing proceeding.” Reply 1
`(citing Perfect World Entm’t, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., Case IPR2015-01026,
`(PTAB Aug. 3, 2015) (Paper 10); Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00845 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2014) (Paper 14); Enzymotec Ltd. v.
`Neptune Techs. & Bioresources, Inc., Case IPR2014-00556 (PTAB July 9,
`2014) (Paper 19)); see also id. at 4 (citing Dot Hill Sys. Corp. v. Crossroads
`Sys., Inc., Case IPR2015-00825, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2015)
`(Paper 20) (granting motion for joinder because any potential prejudice to
`patent owner due to joinder “does not outweigh the prejudice to Dot Hill of
`losing its opportunity to challenge the claims of the” challenged patent)).
`Having considered Petitioner’s Motion, as well as Patent Owner’s
`Opposition thereto, we agree with Petitioner that joinder with the Sony 209
`IPR is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of this case.
`Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`V. ORDER
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted in IPR2016-00962
`as to claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 on the following grounds:
`Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`anticipated by Liu;
`Claims 2–4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
`of Liu and Black;
`Claims 5 and 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in
`view of Liu and Riseman;
`Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Liu and
`Oldham;
`Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Liu
`and Wen;
`Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Liu,
`Wen, and Ying;
`Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Liu,
`Riseman, and Kusunoki; and
`Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Liu,
`Riseman, and Oldham;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2016-00209 is granted, and Samsung is joined as a petitioner in
`IPR2016-00209;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2016-00962 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings shall be made only in
`IPR2016-00209;
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the grounds for
`trial in IPR2016-00209 remain unchanged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the Scheduling
`Order in place for IPR2016-00209 (Paper 21) remains unchanged, subject to
`any stipulations agreed to by the parties;
`FURTHER ORDERED that in IPR2016-00209, Sony and Samsung
`will file each paper, except for a motion that does not involve the other
`party, as a single, consolidated filing, subject to the word counts or page
`limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, and shall identify each such filing as a
`consolidated filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that for any consolidated filing, if Samsung
`wishes to file an additional paper to address points of disagreement with
`Sony, Samsung must request authorization from the Board to file a motion
`for additional words or pages, and no additional paper may be filed unless
`the Board grants such a motion;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Sony and Samsung shall collectively
`designate attorneys to conduct the cross-examination of any witness
`produced by Patent Owner and the redirect of any witness produced by Sony
`and Samsung, within the timeframes set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) or
`agreed to by the parties;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Sony and Samsung shall collectively
`designate attorneys to present a consolidated argument at the oral hearing, if
`requested and scheduled;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2016-00209 shall
`be changed to reflect joinder of Samsung as a petitioner in accordance with
`the attached example; and
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record of IPR2016-00209.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00962
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`PETITIONER:
`Heath J. Briggs
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`briggsh@gtlaw.com
`mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`RaytheonGTIPR@gtlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Thomas J. Filarski
`John L. Abramic
`Daniel S. Stringfield
`Brian G. Fahrenbach
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`tfilarski@steptoe.com
`jabramic@steptoe.com
`dstringfield@steptoe.com
`bfahrenbach@steptoe.com
`678IPR@steptoe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002099
`Patent 5,591,678
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9 Case IPR2016-00962 has been joined with 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