`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 6, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01711
`Patent 7,945,699 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01711
`Patent 7,945,699 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Cavium, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1–3,
`6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,699 B2 (“the ’699
`patent,” Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Alacritech, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Concurrently with the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder.
`Paper 3 (“Joinder Motion.”). The Joinder Motion seeks to join this
`proceeding with Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Case IPR2017-01559 (“the 1559
`IPR”). Joinder Motion 1.
`At the time Petitioner filed its Petition and Joinder Motion, the Board
`had not yet decided whether to institute inter partes review of the ’699
`patent in the 1559 IPR. On November 7, 2017, however, we entered a
`Decision in the 1559 IPR denying the Petitioner as to all challenges.
`IPR2017-01559 Paper 7 (“1559 Institution Decision” or “Decision”).
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that the Joinder Motion
`should be dismissed as moot and the Petition for inter partes review denied.
`
`II. DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`Because the petition in IPR2017-01559 was denied and inter partes
`review was not instituted, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is dismissed as moot.
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`III. DENIAL OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Petitioner states that the Petition is “based on the identical grounds
`that form the basis for the pending inter partes review initiated by Intel
`Corporation” in IPR2017-01559. Joinder Motion 1. As Petitioner states,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01711
`Patent 7,945,699 B2
`
`[t]he Petition asserts only grounds that are awaiting the Board’s
`institution in the Intel [1559] IPR, supported by the same
`technical expert and the same testimony. There are no new
`arguments for the Board to consider. Likewise, the Petition relies
`on the same exhibits.
`Id. at 4.
`As noted above, on November 7, 2017, we denied institution of inter
`partes review on the grounds of obviousness over Kiyohara and SMB.
`IPR2017-01559 Institution Decision 6. Here, Petitioner presents grounds
`and arguments identical to those we found insufficient in our previous
`Decision.1 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in our Decision in
`IPR2017-01559 (id. at 4–6), we deny the Petition in this proceeding.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is dismissed as moot; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes
`review is instituted.
`
`
`
`1 On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Petitioner contacted the Board
`via email requesting a conference to “seek leave to file a Reply to the Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Responses pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) in the
`form of two supplemental declarations related to the public accessibility of
`Exhibit 1055.” As an initial matter, our rules only permit supplemental
`information after to institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. §
`42.123 (“Once a trial has been instituted, a party may file a motion to submit
`supplemental information . . . .”). Moreover, not having heard from
`Petitioner in the 4 weeks since we denied the 1559 Petition, we relied on
`Petitioner’s representation that there were no new exhibits or arguments for
`the Board to consider over the 1559 Petition. See Joinder Motion
`4. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01711
`Patent 7,945,699 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Patrick D. McPherson
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`James M. Glass
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Brian E. Mack
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`