throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 28
`
` Entered: May 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, DAVID C. McKONE, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On January 12, 2017, Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) filed a Petition
`
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–15, 17, and 18
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,458,245 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’245 patent”). Concurrently with the Petition, Facebook filed a Motion for
`Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”), requesting that this proceeding be joined with
`Microsoft Corp. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-01141
`(“1141 IPR”). Mot. 1. Patent Owner Windy City Innovations, LLC
`(“Windy City”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”) but
`did not file an opposition to the Motion for Joinder.
`
`Since the filing of Facebook’s Motion for Joinder, Windy City and the
`petitioner in the 1141 IPR (“Microsoft”) have settled and, on April 24, 2017,
`moved to terminate the 1141 IPR. 1141 IPR, Paper 25. We granted the
`motion to terminate as to Microsoft, but held the motion in abeyance as to
`Windy City pending the outcome of Facebook’s Motion for Joinder in the
`present case. 1141 IPR, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB May 10, 2017) (Paper 27).
`For the reasons discussed below, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`all challenged claims and grant Facebook’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`In the 1141 IPR, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–40
`
`of the ’245 patent as allegedly unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
`on the combined teachings of Major BBS1 and Higley2. 1141 IPR, slip op.
`
`
`1 GALACTICOMM, INC., THE MAJOR BBS VERSION 6.2 SYSTEM OPERATIONS
`MANUAL (1994) (Ex. 1012, “Major BBS”). We note that the Preliminary
`Response refers to this reference as “Stein.”
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`at 32 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2016) (Paper 8) (“1141 Inst. Dec.”). Facebook
`represents that the Petition in this proceeding challenges claims 1–15, 17,
`and 18 on the same grounds of unpatentability, relying on the same evidence
`and arguments, as presented in the 1141 IPR. Mot. 1. According to
`Facebook, the only substantive difference between its Petition and the
`petition in the 1141 IPR is that Facebook does not challenge claims 16 and
`19–40.3 See id. In addition, Facebook asserts it is not barred from filing the
`Petition because the one-year deadline to file a petition seeking inter partes
`review after being served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`challenged patent does not apply when the petition is accompanied by a
`request for joinder. Pet. 2; see 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Windy City does not dispute that the present Petition is substantively
`the same as the petition in the 1141 IPR with respect to the challenged
`claims, but argues that institution is not warranted because the Petition
`nonetheless fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of
`its asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Prelim. Resp. 3–4; see also
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (authorizing joinder only after a determination that the
`petition “warrants institution of an inter partes review under section 314”);
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (prohibiting institution absent a determination that the
`information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,790,793, filed Apr. 4, 1995, issued Aug. 4, 1998
`(Ex. 1010, “Higley”).
`3 The petition in the 1141 IPR also challenged claims 41–58, which
`Facebook also does not challenge in the present Petition. See 1141 Inst.
`Dec. 5–6. An inter partes review was not instituted, however, with respect
`to those claims in the 1141 IPR. See id. at 32.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`claims challenged in the petition”). Specifically, Windy City advances three
`arguments against the Petition: (1) the asserted prior art fails to teach or
`suggest certain limitations of the challenged claims; (2) the Petition fails to
`articulate a sufficient motivation to combine Major BBS and Higley; and (3)
`a person of ordinary skill would not have had a reasonable expectation of
`success in combining the asserted teachings of the prior art. See Prelim.
`Resp. 3–4.
`
`Based on the evidence currently of record and the arguments
`presented in the Petition, we determine Facebook has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on each of its asserted grounds of
`unpatentability for essentially the same reasons as explained in our Decision
`on Institution in the 1141 IPR. See 1141 Inst. Dec. 14–25, 29–31. In
`reaching this determination, we consider the information presented in Windy
`City’s Preliminary Response, which includes arguments it did not present in
`the 1141 IPR prior to institution in that case, but Windy City’s positions are
`not persuasive on this record, as explained below.
`
`As noted above, Windy City first argues the asserted prior art fails to
`teach or suggest certain limitations of the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp.
`12–14. Claim 1 of the ’245 patent recites, “a controller computer system
`adapted to communicate responsive to a respective authenticated user
`identity corresponding respectively to each of a plurality of participator
`computers.” Claim 7, the only other challenged independent claim, recites,
`“a computer system communicatively connected to each of a plurality of
`participator computers responsive to communication of a respective login
`name and a password corresponding to a respective user identity.”
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`According to Windy City, Facebook fails to show how the computer system
`in Major BBS teaches these limitations. See id.
`
`Specifically, Windy City faults Facebook for failing to “explain how
`the alleged authentication [in Major BBS] . . . results in adapting the
`controller computer system for communication.” Id. at 12–13. We disagree
`based on the present record. The Petition identifies teachings in Major BBS
`that describe an IBM compatible computer system that hosts the Major BBS
`software, which enables the system to communicate with user computers
`that connect to the system to provide services and content to the users.
`See Pet. 22. This showing is sufficient for purposes of institution to
`demonstrate that the system in Major BBS is “adapted to communicate” with
`the user computers, as recited in the challenged claims.
`
`Further, as the Petition explains, Major BBS describes an
`authentication procedure whereby users must supply a User-ID and
`password to access services on the system. See id. at 23. Based on the cited
`evidence, the Petition shows sufficiently that the system is, thus, adapted to
`communicate with user computers “responsive to” authenticated user
`identities (i.e., users with identities verified through the system’s
`authentication procedure). To the extent Windy City is arguing that the
`Major BBS authentication procedure must result in the installation of the
`Major BBS software—i.e., that “adapted to” requires software installation,
`as opposed to its operation on the computer system—this argument is not
`persuasive because no evidence is presented to support such an
`interpretation of the claims, and it misconstrues the positions presented in
`the Petition as being limited to software installation.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`Windy City also argues the Petition fails to explain adequately how
`
`Major BBS teaches that an authenticated user identity corresponds to “each
`of a plurality of participator computers.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. In essence,
`Windy City’s position appears to be that the claim requires that a single
`authenticated user identity must correspond to multiple participator
`computers, as opposed to “a single user.” See id. Windy City presents no
`evidence or arguments to support such an interpretation of the claims.
`Facebook contends that Major BBS teaches a plurality of user computers
`(i.e., participator computers) communicating via the Major BBS system once
`those computers are each authenticated, i.e., their users are each
`authenticated by verifying their User-IDs and passwords. See Pet. 23.
`Based on the presently available evidence, Facebook’s contentions are
`persuasive and sufficient for purposes of institution.
`
`Finally, Windy City argues that the Petition fails to adequately set
`forth a motivation to combine Major BBS and Higley, or to demonstrate that
`a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of
`success in doing so. Prelim. Resp. 14–18. On this record, we disagree.
`Windy City’s arguments focus primarily on the unavailability of certain
`features for the product described in Major BBS, which is largely inapposite,
`and Windy City ignores other evidence presented in the Petition, such as the
`testimony of Facebook’s declarant, Christopher M. Schmandt. See id. As
`explained in our Decision on Institution in the 1141 IPR, which addressed
`the same arguments and evidence now advanced by Facebook (Pet. 19–21),
`Mr. Schmandt’s testimony and the teachings of Higley sufficiently support
`the asserted motivation to combine the references and demonstrate that a
`person of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected the combination to
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`successfully enable the system taught in Major BBS to communicate over
`the Internet. See 1141 Inst. Dec. 15–18.4
`
`For the above reasons, in particular the fact that the present Petition
`advances materially the same arguments based on the same evidence as the
`petition in the 1141 IPR, we determine Facebook 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 1141 IPR with
`respect to claims 1–15, 17, and 18 of the ’245 patent.
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`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. As the moving party,
`Facebook bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested
`relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`
`4 For the same reasons as explained in the 1141 IPR Decision on Institution,
`we decline to institute any ground of unpatentability based on Exhibits 1013
`or 1014. See 1141 Inst. Dec. 16–17. Thus, Windy City’s arguments
`regarding the combination of Major BBS (and Higley) with those references
`are moot. See Prelim. Resp. 15–18.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`As an initial matter, the Motion for Joinder meets the requirements of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) because the Motion was filed on January 12, 2017,
`which is not later than one month after the 1141 IPR was instituted on
`December 12, 2016.
`
`Additionally, the present Petition challenges the same patent as is
`under inter partes review in the 1141 IPR, and asserts the same grounds of
`unpatentability based on the same prior art and the same evidence, including
`the same declaration testimony. Mot. 5–6. The Petition challenges only
`claims that are already the subject of the inter partes review instituted in the
`1141 IPR. Moreover, the Petition does not assert any other grounds of
`unpatentability, or present any new evidence not already of record in the
`1141 IPR.
`
`Facebook further asserts that granting joinder would not require any
`material delay or modifications to the existing schedule in the 1141 IPR
`because joinder would not introduce any new issues or arguments. Id. at 7.
`We agree. For similar reasons, the scope of briefing and discovery in the
`joined proceeding would not be significantly different than the anticipated
`scope of the 1141 IPR prior to the termination of Microsoft—in fact, the
`burden on the parties and the Board may be reduced because the present
`Petition raises only a subset of the challenges raised in the petition in the
`1141 IPR. As noted above, Windy City did not file an opposition to the
`Motion for Joinder and has not identified any undue prejudice or harm it
`might suffer should joinder be granted.
`
`Based on the facts and circumstances discussed above, we determine
`Facebook has established good cause for joining this proceeding with the
`1141 IPR. We determine that granting the Motion for Joinder under these
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`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 Motion for Joinder should be granted.
`
`To guide the parties in conducting discovery and presenting
`arguments, we make clear that the parties should pursue only claims 1–15,
`17, and 18 in the joined proceeding. “If an inter partes review is instituted
`and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any
`patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under
`section 316(d).” 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Thus, in the joined proceeding, we
`must issue a final written decision regarding the patentability of “any patent
`claim challenged by the petitioner.” Id.
`
`Although Microsoft challenged a number of claims in addition to the
`claims specified above, the 1141 IPR has been terminated as to Microsoft
`under 35 U.S.C. § 317, which dictates that “[a]n inter partes review
`instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any
`petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner,
`unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request
`for termination is filed.” Thus, Microsoft no longer challenges any claims of
`the ’245 patent in the joined proceeding. Facebook now is “the petitioner”
`for purposes of § 318(a). Accordingly, we are required by § 318(a) to issue
`a final written decision only as to the claims challenged by Facebook, i.e.,
`claims 1–15, 17, and 18. For the avoidance of doubt, we dismiss from the
`joined proceeding and, for purposes of § 318(a), will not consider the
`patentability of claims 16 and 19–40.
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review in
`
`IPR2017-00655 is hereby instituted for claims 1–15, 17, and 18 of the ’245
`patent on the grounds of unpatentability set forth above, and no other
`grounds are authorized;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Facebook’s Motion for Joinder is
`granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-00655 is hereby joined with
`IPR2016-01141;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in
`IPR2016-01141 (Paper 9), as modified by joint stipulation (Papers 20 and
`21), is unchanged and shall govern the schedule of the joined proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-00655 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined proceeding are to be
`made in IPR2016-01141;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that challenges to claims 16 and 19–40 of the
`’245 patent are dismissed from the joined proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`into the record of IPR2016-01141; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2016-01141 shall
`be modified to reflect joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`attached example.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`11
`
`Case IPR2017-00655
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Micallef
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`
`Todd Siegel
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`Todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Vincent J. Rubino
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Example Case Caption for Joined Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-011411
`Patent 8,458,245 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00655 has been joined with this 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