`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 20, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01732
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01732
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Cavium, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1–
`21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 B2 (“the ’072 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.”).
`Within a few days of filing 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 IPR2017-01705 (“the 1705
`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 ’072
`patent in the 1705 IPR. On December 19, 2017, however, we entered a
`Decision in the 1705 IPR denying the Petitioner as to all challenges. 1705
`IPR, Paper 7 (“1705 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 IPR2017-01705 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 the 1705 IPR. Joinder Motion 1. As Petitioner states,
`[t]he Petition asserts only grounds that are awaiting the Board’s
`institution in the Intel [1705] IPR, supported by the same
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01732
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`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 December 19, 2017, we denied institution of inter
`partes review on the grounds of obviousness over Connery.1 1705
`Institution Decision 6–7. Here, Petitioner presents grounds and arguments
`identical to those we found insufficient in our previous Decision.
`Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in our Decision in IPR2017-01705
`(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 US Patent 5,937,169, issued August 10, 1999 (“Connery”).
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01732
`
`IPR2017-01732
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01732
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Patrick McPherson
`David Xue
`Duane Morris LLP
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`dtxue@duanemorris.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jim Glass
`Jospeh Paunovich
`Brian Mack
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`5
`
`