Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 53
`
` Entered: August 14, 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 IPR2016-011551
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, DAVID C. McKONE, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2017-00622 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 53
`
` Entered: August 14, 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 IPR2016-011551
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, DAVID C. McKONE, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2017-00622 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On June 3, 2016, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) filed a petition
`
`(Paper 1) in the present case seeking inter partes review of approximately
`150 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’657 patent”).
`An inter partes review was instituted on each of the challenged claims on
`December 8, 2016. Paper 8.
`
`One month later, on January 7, 2017, Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”)
`filed a petition in IPR2017-00622 (“622 IPR”) seeking inter partes review of
`claims 189 and 465 of the ’657 patent. 622 IPR, Paper 2. Along with that
`petition, Facebook filed a motion requesting joinder with the present
`proceeding. 622 IPR, Paper 3. On February 6, 2017, Windy City filed an
`Opposition to the Motion for Joinder. 622 IPR, Paper 7. Petitioner filed a
`Reply to that Opposition on March 3, 2017. 622 IPR, Paper 8.
`Subsequently, on April 17, 2017, Windy City filed a Preliminary Response
`in the 622 IPR. 622 IPR, Paper 9.
`
`While Facebook’s petition and joinder motion were pending,
`Microsoft and Patent Owner Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”)
`reached a settlement agreement and filed a Joint Motion to Terminate the
`present proceeding on April 24, 2017. Paper 29. The Joint Motion did not
`mention Facebook’s joinder motion or the 622 IPR.
`
`In a May 10, 2017, decision, we granted the Joint Motion to
`Terminate in the present proceeding, but only with respect to Microsoft.
`Paper 31 (“1st Term. Dec.”). Noting Facebook’s pending joinder motion,
`we did not decide at that time whether to grant the motion with respect to the
`entire proceeding, indicating we would do so after deciding whether
`Facebook would be joined as a party to this proceeding. Id. at 2–3.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`On June 1, 2017, we granted Facebook’s joinder motion. Paper 32
`
`(“Joinder Inst. Dec.”). We noted that Facebook challenged claims 189 and
`465 of the ’657 patent on the same asserted grounds of unpatentability,
`based on the same arguments and evidence, as in Microsoft’s petition with
`respect to those claims in the present proceeding. Id. at 3, 5–6. Further, we
`clarified that, after joinder, Facebook is “the petitioner” in this proceeding
`for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which in relevant part requires the Board
`to “issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any
`patent claim challenged by the petitioner” (emphasis added). Id. at 16.
`Thus, we made clear that all claims formerly challenged by Microsoft prior
`to its termination, but which were not challenged by Facebook, were no
`longer part of this proceeding. Id.
`
`After joining Facebook as a party to the present proceeding, we issued
`a second decision on June 7, 2017, to address the remaining issues regarding
`the Joint Motion to Terminate. Paper 33 (“2nd Term. Dec.”). In that
`decision, we denied the Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to Windy
`City because Facebook remained as an active petitioner. Id. at 2–3. On June
`14, 2017, Windy City filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 39 (“Req.
`Reh’g”).
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision
`
`should be modified. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all
`matters it contends were misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.
`See id. Windy City requests rehearing of two decisions, each of which it
`contends was an abuse of discretion. First, Windy City contends that our
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`decision to terminate as to Microsoft, but not as to the entire proceeding,
`exceeded our statutory authority. Req. Reh’g 7–10. Second, Windy City
`contends we exceeded our statutory authority by joining Facebook to this
`proceeding despite that Facebook challenges only a portion of the claims
`originally challenged by Microsoft. Id. at 10–13. As explained below,
`neither contention is supported by the relevant authorities, and the Request
`for Rehearing is denied.
`
`Termination as to Microsoft But Not as to Entire Proceeding
`A.
`As an initial matter, our decision to terminate as to Microsoft but not
`
`as to the entire proceeding was entered on May 10, 2017. See 1st Term.
`Dec. Windy City’s Request for Rehearing was not filed until June 14, 2017.
`See Req. Reh’g. Thus, with respect to this termination decision, Windy
`City’s Request was not timely filed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1). For that
`reason alone, the Request for Rehearing should be denied as to this issue.
`
`Moreover, even had the Request been timely filed, Windy City’s
`arguments fail to establish that our decision was improper. It argues that our
`decision exceeded our statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). Req.
`Reh’g 7–10. Section 317(a) states the following:
`An 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. . . . If no petitioner remains in the inter partes
`review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final
`written decision under section 318(a).
`
`Pursuant to the statute, we “terminated [the inter partes review] with respect
`to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`owner” by granting the Joint Motion to Terminate as to Microsoft. See
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 1st Term. Dec. 2. Windy City does not contest that
`aspect of our decision. Rather, it argues our decision failed to follow the
`portion of § 317(a) that states, “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes
`review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written
`decision.” Req. Reh’g 8–10.
`
`According to Windy City, once Microsoft was terminated, the Board
`was obligated to either terminate the entire review or proceed to a final
`written decision. Id. Indisputably, we did not terminate the entire review.
`Thus, Windy City contends that the only other permissible option was to
`proceed to a final written decision. Id. Windy City asserts that our decision
`to hold in abeyance our ruling as to whether the entire proceeding should be
`terminated (until after deciding Facebook’s joinder motion) constituted a
`“suspension of the [inter partes] review,” which exceeded our authority
`under § 317(a) because the Board was obligated instead to “proceed to a
`final written decision.” Id.
`
`Windy City misconstrues the statute and our decision. First, the
`statute does not mandate that the Board either terminate the entire review or
`proceed to a final written decision. In contrast, as noted above, the same
`statutory provision states that an inter partes review “shall” be terminated
`with respect to a petitioner upon a joint request. Rather, it states explicitly
`that the Board “may” do so. We further note that when, as here, there are
`multiple cases before the Board involving the same patent, the Board is
`explicitly granted discretion to “enter any appropriate order,” including “the
`stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination” of such cases. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.122(a); see also 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) (granting discretion to “determine
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`the manner in which the inter partes review or other proceeding or matter
`may proceed”). Consistent with this statutory framework, we considered
`Facebook’s pending petition challenging the same patent and motion for
`joinder with this proceeding, and concluded that we would first decide
`Facebook’s joinder motion (which was filed before the motion to terminate)
`before deciding whether to terminate the entire proceeding. 1st Term. Dec.
`2–3; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a) (“The Board may take up petitions or
`motions for decisions in any order . . . .”).
`
`Second, Windy City is incorrect that “proceed[ing] to a final written
`decision” under § 317(a) precludes our decision here. Windy City appears
`to argue that once Microsoft was terminated, “proceed to a final written
`decision” meant that the Board should have proceeded immediately to issue
`a final written decision. See Req. Reh’g 8–10. In particular, Windy City
`argues that our decision incorrectly indicated the Board could “proceed with
`the trial” because doing so is inconsistent with “proceed[ing] to a final
`written decision” under § 317(a). See id. Section 317(a), however, does not
`specify when the final written decision should issue, much less require it to
`be issued immediately without further trial.2 The applicable deadline for the
`final written decision remains one year from institution, as specified in
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Thus, our decision to
`proceed with the trial without immediately issuing a final written decision
`was consistent with the applicable statutory provisions and regulations.
`
`
`2 We note that Windy City’s interpretation of the statute could conflict with
`other statutory provisions. For example, proceeding immediately to issue a
`final written decision could circumvent patent owners’ rights to an oral
`hearing under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`Third, Windy City is mistaken that our decision “suspend[ed]
`
`indefinitely” this inter partes review. See Req. Reh’g 8; see also id. at 10
`(“[T]he Board had no statutory authority to suspend [this proceeding]
`without a petitioner for three weeks . . . .”). To the contrary, our decision
`made clear that trial was to proceed. 1st Term. Dec. 3. Our decision did not
`state that the review was suspended, nor did it alter the case schedule in any
`way.3 As explained above, proceeding with trial was consistent with
`§ 317(a). It also was consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a), contrary to
`Windy City’s arguments. See Req. Reh’g 9–10. Rule 42.74(a) provides that
`“the Board is not a party to the settlement and may independently determine
`any question of jurisdiction, patentability, or Office practice.” As explained
`in our decision (1st Term. Dec. 3), this provision indicates that the Board has
`the authority to proceed with the trial—i.e., “independently determine . . .
`patentability”—even when the petitioner has exited the case due to
`settlement. See, e.g., Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas LLC, Case
`IPR2013-00016, slip op. at 2–3 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2013) (Paper 31) (granting
`termination as to all petitioners, but denying termination of the inter partes
`review and instead proceeding without a petitioner).
`
`For the reasons explained above, our decision on May 10, 2017, to
`terminate as to Microsoft, but not the entire proceeding, was consistent with
`the applicable statutory provisions and Board rules. Thus, Windy City has
`not established that we misapprehended the law, or that our decision should
`be modified. Moreover, the Request for Rehearing with respect to this
`decision was not timely filed.
`
`3 The only changes to the case schedule since our decision on the Joint
`Motion to Terminate were either jointly stipulated by the parties, including
`Windy City (Paper 34), or requested by Windy City (Paper 42).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`Joinder of Facebook
`B.
`Windy City contends that our decision granting Facebook’s joinder
`
`motion was an abuse of discretion because 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not
`“provide authority or discretion to join a party to a portion of an inter partes
`review.” Req. Reh’g 10–11. Although it filed an Opposition to the Motion
`for Joinder, Windy City did not argue that joinder was improper or contrary
`to § 315(c) because Facebook only challenged a subset of the claims
`challenged by Microsoft. We could not misapprehend or overlook an
`argument that was never made. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for
`rehearing cannot be used to advance new arguments not previously
`presented, and Windy City has waived this argument as a result. See, e.g.,
`Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case IPR2015-01022, slip op. at 5, 7–10 (PTAB
`Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 9) (denying a request for rehearing because the
`arguments had not been previously made).
`
`Even were we to consider Windy City’s untimely argument, however,
`Windy City does not demonstrate that our decision was an abuse of
`discretion or inconsistent with applicable law. Section 315(c) states in
`relevant part, “the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party [to
`an instituted inter partes review] . . . any person who properly files a petition
`under section 311 that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of
`an inter partes review.” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (delegating the
`Director’s authority over requests for joinder to the Board).
`
`According to Windy City, § 315(c) does not “provide authority or
`discretion” to join a party that challenges fewer than all of the claims
`challenged by the original petitioner(s). See Req. Reh’g 11. Indeed, Windy
`City argues that joinder is only permissible in two scenarios: (1) “joining a
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`party with an ‘identical petition’ to an instituted review in full,” and (2)
`“allowing a party to present additional validity challenges.” Id. at 11–12.
`Windy City’s position, however, is not supported by the relevant authorities.
`
`First, § 315(c) does not recite any limitations on the challenges
`presented by the party seeking joinder. To the contrary, § 315(c) states that
`“any person who properly files a petition under section 311” may be joined,
`requiring only that the petition “warrants the institution of an inter partes
`review.” The statute does not address the specifics of challenged claims,
`asserted grounds of unpatentability, evidence relied upon, etc. Rather, such
`considerations are left to the Director’s “discretion” (and, thus, the Board’s
`discretion by delegation). 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (stating “the Director, in his or
`her discretion, may join”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. Thus, far from failing to
`provide authority or discretion (Req. Reh’g 11), § 315(c) expressly provides
`for such discretion.
`
`Second, Windy City’s argument that joinder is only permissible in
`“two scenarios” is not supported by any cited authority. See Req. Reh’g 11–
`12. Windy City relies on the following statement in the legislative history of
`the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act:
`Sections 315(c) and 325(c) allow joinder of inter partes and post-
`grant reviews. The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed
`as of right—if an inter partes review is instituted on the basis of
`a petition, for example, a party that files an identical petition will
`be joined to that proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own
`briefs and make its own arguments. If a party seeking joinder
`also presents additional challenges to validity that satisfy the
`threshold for instituting a proceeding, the Office will either join
`that party and its new arguments to the existing proceeding, or
`institute a second proceeding for the patent. The Director is
`given discretion, however, over whether to allow joinder.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).4
`Although the above statement mentions, “for example,” a circumstance
`where “a party that files an identical petition” or “presents additional
`challenges to validity” (id.), Windy City does not identify any statement in
`the legislative history—or, indeed, any other authority—indicating that these
`examples are the only scenarios in which joinder is permissible. Moreover,
`to the extent that it provides guidance in understanding § 315(c), the above
`statement refutes Windy City’s contention that the Board lacks discretion
`with regard to joinder. Id. (“The Director is given discretion, however, over
`whether to allow joinder.”).
`
`Finally, the two cases cited by Windy City also do not support its
`arguments. First, Windy City cites ZTE Corporation v. Adaptix, Inc., Case
`IPR2015-01184, slip op. 4–7 (PTAB July 24, 2015) (Paper 10), noting that
`the panel denied joinder in that case “even when an otherwise identical
`petition was filed merely because the parties relied on a different expert.”
`Req. Reh’g 12. The decision in ZTE did not, however, hold that the Board
`lacks discretion over joinder or that joinder is impermissible per se if the
`joinder petition is not identical. Rather, the panel in ZTE weighed multiple
`factors, including that joinder in that case would have required the patent
`owner to depose multiple experts and would have raised “new issues” for the
`patent owner to address. ZTE, slip op. at 4–5. In fact, the panel in ZTE
`recognized that “the decision to grant joinder is discretionary.” Id. at 6. We
`note that Windy City does not identify in its Request for Rehearing any error
`
`
`4 Windy City filed a copy of this legislative history, but it was misnumbered
`as Exhibit 2015. Windy City may refile it as Exhibit 2016.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`in our determination that joinder with the present case would not involve any
`new evidence, or raise new issues or arguments. See Joinder Inst. Dec. 4–7.
`Windy City also relies on Dell Inc. v. Electronics and
`
`Telecommunications Research Institute, Case IPR2015-00549, slip op. 7–8
`(PTAB Mar. 26, 2015) (Paper 10) (representative). Req. Reh’g 13. The
`facts of Dell, however, are very different from those of the present case. In
`Dell, the petitioners sought joinder with an earlier-instituted inter partes
`review, IPR2014-00901, and challenged the same claims on the same
`grounds. Id. at 2–3. The panel held that the petitioners were estopped under
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from challenging all but two of the challenged claims
`based on a third, still-earlier inter partes review, IPR2013-00635, in which
`the Board had issued a final written decision. Id. at 4–6. Although the
`petitioners were not estopped from challenging the two remaining claims,
`the panel determined that joinder would “unnecessarily complicate” the
`earlier proceeding, which already had been subject to joinder and already
`had two petitioners, by adding new petitioners challenging a different set of
`claims than the existing petitioners (i.e., a subset), thereby imposing
`additional burdens on the patent owner. Id. at 7–8. Unlike Dell, the 622 IPR
`did not have an existing petitioner challenging a different set of claims
`because Microsoft had been terminated from the case, and joinder did not
`impose additional burdens on Windy City to respond to multiple petitioners
`with different challenges. Moreover, the panel in Dell made clear that its
`denial of joinder was an exercise of discretion based on the facts and
`circumstances of that case. Id. at 7–8. Thus, Windy City’s assertions of
`inconsistency with Dell are unfounded, and Dell does not support its
`arguments on rehearing.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that our decision to join
`
`Facebook to the present proceeding was consistent with applicable law.
`Moreover, Windy City presents arguments that were not previously made,
`which is improper for a rehearing request.
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`As explained above, Windy City has not identified any matter that we
`
`misapprehended or overlooked, nor has Windy City established that our
`decisions were improper under governing law or an abuse of discretion.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71. Therefore, Windy City has not carried its burden to
`show that our decisions should be modified. Id.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Windy City’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi Keefe
`Phillip Morton
`Andrew Mace
`Daniel Knauss
`Mark Weinstein
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`pmorton@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`dknauss@cooley.com
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Vincent Rubino
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`13
`
`
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
