`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01733
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01733
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Cavium, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 9–
`
`15, 17, and 19–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 B2 (“the ’241 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 IPR2017-01713 (“the 1713
`
`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 ’241
`
`patent in the 1713 IPR. On December 7, 2017, however, we entered a
`
`Decision in the 1713 IPR denying the Petitioner as to all challenges. 1713
`
`IPR, Paper 7 (“1713 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 IPR2017-01713 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 1713 IPR. Joinder Motion 1. As Petitioner states,
`
`[t]he Petition asserts only grounds that are awaiting the Board’s
`institution in the Intel [1713] IPR, supported by the same
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01733
`Patent 7,337,241 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 7, 2017, we denied institution of inter
`
`partes review on the grounds of obviousness over Connery et al. (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,937,169 (Ex. 1043, “Connery”)). 1713 Institution Decision 8.
`
`In our Decision, we determined that, “the ’241 patent is entitled to claim
`
`priority to the October 14, 1997 date of [U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`No. 60/061,809] and, thus, Connery, with a priority data of October 29,
`
`1997, is not prior art to the ’241 patent.” Id. at 8. Here, Petitioner presents
`
`grounds and arguments regarding the priority date for the ’241 patent
`
`identical to those we found insufficient in our previous Decision. See Pet.
`
`30–33; see also 1713 Institution Decision 5–8. Accordingly, for the reasons
`
`discussed in our Decision in IPR2017-01713 (id.), we deny the Petition in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01733
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`brainmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
