`
`_____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,682,243
`
`Filing Date: June 23, 2005
`
`Issue Date: March 23, 2010
`
`Title: METHOD FOR PROVIDING ONLINE GAME WHICH CHANGES
`PILOT DATA AND UNIT DATA IN GEAR AND SYSTEM THEREOF
`
`_____________________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To be Assigned
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,682,243 (CASE NO. IPR2017-01082)
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the PTAB E2E System
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`This Motion for Joinder is Timely ..................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate ........................................................................ 5
`
`C. No New Grounds of Unpatentability in the Blizzard IPR Petition 6
`
`D.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Wargaming IPR’s Case Schedule..... 6
`
`1.
`
`The Same Grounds in the Wargaming IPR Petition are Asserted
`
`in the Blizzard IPR Petition ........................................................ 6
`
`Petitioner Will Act as an Understudy ......................................... 7
`
`Petitioner Will Rely on Wargaming’s Expert Upon Joinder ...... 8
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`E. Discovery and Briefing Will Be Simplified .....................................11
`
`F.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice Wargaming or Patent Owner ...........11
`
`G. This Joinder Petition Should Be Granted Under the Follow-On
`
`Petition Factors ..................................................................................12
`
`1. Whether the Same Petitioner Previously Filed a Petition
`
`Directed to the Same Claims of the Same Patent; ....................13
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Whether at the Time of Filing of the First Petition the Petitioner
`
`Knew of The Prior Art Asserted in The Second Petition or
`
`Should Have Known of It; ........................................................13
`
`3. Whether at the Time of Filing of the Second Petition the
`
`Petitioner Already Received the Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response to the First Petition or Received the Board’s Decision
`
`on Whether to Institute Review in the First Petitioner; ............13
`
`4.
`
`The Length of Time That Elapsed Between the Time the
`
`Petitioner Learned of the Prior Art Asserted in the Second
`
`Petition and the Filing of the Second Petitioner; ......................14
`
`5. Whether the Petitioner Provides Adequate Explanation for the
`
`Time Elapsed Between the Filings of Multiple Petition Directed
`
`to the Same Claims of the Same Patent; ...................................14
`
`The Finite Resources of the Board; ..........................................15
`
`The Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(A)(11) to Issue a
`
`Final Determination Not Later Than 1 Year After the Date on
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Which the Director Notices Institution of Review. ..................15
`
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby moves the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“Board”) for joinder of its today-filed petition for inter partes
`
`review (“Blizzard IPR”) with a previously instituted IPR filed by Wargaming
`
`Group Limited (Case No. IPR2017-01082, “Wargaming IPR”). The Blizzard IPR
`
`is substantially identical to the Wargaming IPR. Both seek inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-7 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,243 (the “’243
`
`patent,” Ex. 1001). Further, the Blizzard IPR and Wargaming IPR rely upon the
`
`same analytical framework (e.g., the same grounds, the same arguments, the same
`
`substantive expert analysis, etc.)
`
`in addressing
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`Accordingly, resolving the Blizzard IPR and the Wargaming IPR will necessarily
`
`involve considering the same issues by all parties and the Board. Patent Owner
`
`Game and Technology Co., Ltd. (“GAT”) will not be prejudiced by joinder, as no
`
`new grounds are being raised by Petitioner, and no alteration to the Wargaming
`
`IPR schedule is necessary as a result of Petitioner’s joinder.
`
`Petitioner is filing this petition and joinder motion to ensure that a petitioner
`
`remains to complete the trial in the event that Wargaming reaches a settlement with
`
`the Patent Owner or is otherwise terminated from the proceeding. As long as
`
`Wargaming continues to participate in the IPR proceedings, Petitioner is willing to
`
`take a passive, “understudy” role. In fact, Petitioner does not intend to introduce
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`any briefing, arguments, or discovery separate from Wargaming in the joined
`
`proceedings.
`
`In light of the similarities of the proceedings, the potential benefit to the
`
`public and the Board that would accrue by Petitioner’s participation in this
`
`proceeding in the event that Wargaming’s participation terminates, and the lack of
`
`prejudice to Patent Owner by Petitioner’s joinder, Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`that the Board join the Wargaming IPR and Blizzard IPR.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`Wargaming filed a petition requesting inter partes review of the ’243 patent
`
`on March 13, 2017. Wargaming IPR, Paper 1. A decision granting institution of
`
`that petition was granted on October 6, 2017. Wargaming IPR, Paper 7. The
`
`Wargaming IPR and Blizzard IPR involve different petitioner groups and real
`
`parties-in-interest. Compare Wargaming IPR, Paper 1 at 72-74 with Blizzard IPR,
`
`Petition at 1 (identifying real parties-in-interest). However, Blizzard is a defendant
`
`in an infringement lawsuit involving the ’243 Patent filed by the Patent Owner,
`
`which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
`
`See Wargaming IPR, Paper 1 at 72; Blizzard IPR, Petition at 1-2 (listing related
`
`matters). On September 30, 2016, Petitioner filed an inter partes review petition
`
`on the ’243 patent on different grounds, which was denied institution on March 21,
`
`2017.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner has notified counsel for Wargaming and Patent Owner regarding
`
`the subject of this motion. As of the filing of this motion, counsel for Wargaming
`
`indicated that Wargaming will not oppose the motion. However, Patent Owner
`
`opposes this motion.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`When more than one petition for inter partes review of the same patent is
`
`properly filed and those petitions warrant institution, the Board has the authority
`
`and discretion to join the proceedings. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Normally, a petition for inter partes review filed more than one year after the
`
`petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party-in-interest or privy) is served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the patent is barred. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.101(b). The one-year time bar, however, does not apply to a petition
`
`filed with a motion for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Joinder of one inter partes review with another inter partes review is appropriate
`
`where it secures the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the inter partes
`
`review proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of institution of any
`
`inter partes review for which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Zond LLC, IPR2014-00781 and IPR2014-782,
`
`Paper 5 at 3 (May 29, 2014) (prior authorization not required before one month
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`deadline). In addition, the Board considers the following factors in deciding
`
`whether to grant a motion for joinder: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate;
`
`(2) whether the party to be joined has presented any new grounds of
`
`unpatentability; (3) what impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See,
`
`e.g., Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2014-01543, Paper 11 at
`
`3 (Oct. 24, 2014); Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion, IPR2014-00898, Paper 15 at 4
`
`(Aug. 13, 2014) (quoting Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper
`
`15 at 4 (April 24, 2013)).
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`As discussed below, this motion is timely, and each factor weighs in favor of
`
`joinder. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion for joinder
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) and enter an order to that
`
`effect.
`
`A. This Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`Joinder can be requested without prior authorization no later than one month
`
`after the institution date of the proceeding to which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b); Taiwan Semiconductor, IPR2014-00781 and IPR2014-782, Paper 5 at
`
`3. Because this motion is being filed on November 6, 2017, which is within one
`
`month of the Board’s decision instituting trial in the Wargaming IPR on October 6,
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`2017, it meets the timeliness requirements of § 42.122(b). See, e.g., Biotronik, Inc.
`
`v. Atlas IP LLC, IPR2015-00534, Paper 10 at 3-4 (Feb. 25, 2015) (granting motion
`
`for joinder filed concurrently with institution of IPR review).
`
`B.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`Although joinder is discretionary, it is appropriate here because the Blizzard
`
`IPR does “not present issues that might complicate or delay” the Wargaming IPR.
`
`See Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at
`
`10 (July 29, 2013) (considering “the policy preference for joining a party that does
`
`not present new issues that might complicate or delay an existing proceeding.”). In
`
`fact, because the Blizzard IPR contains the identical grounds on which the
`
`Wargaming IPR was instituted, joinder would secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of the related proceedings.
`
`Moreover, joinder is also warranted in order to permit Petitioner to protect
`
`its interests related to the validity and interpretation of the ’243 patent claims, and
`
`Petitioner could be prejudiced if it is not permitted to participate in the Wargaming
`
`IPR. As a result, joinder of the Blizzard and Wargaming IPRs ensures that an
`
`accused infringer with an active interest in the proceeding remains a party to this
`
`Trial in the event Wargaming’s participation is terminated prior to its completion.1
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner recognizes that its standing to participate is contingent on the
`
`Board’s resolution of the standing issue in the Wargaming IPR.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`C. No New Grounds of Unpatentability in the Blizzard IPR Petition
`
`The Blizzard IPR Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the
`
`Wargaming IPR. Here, the Board has instituted the Wargaming IPR for claims 1-7
`
`with respect to Wargaming’s first ground of unpatentability (i.e., claims 1-7 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Levine and
`
`D&D Handbook). Wargaming IPR, Paper 14 at 36. As a result, the Blizzard IPR
`
`Petition challenges the same instituted claims under the same ground, while relying
`
`on the same arguments, and the same expert declaration (although through a
`
`different expert). Accordingly, no new claims, no new grounds, and no new
`
`analysis will be added to the Wargaming IPR as a result of the Board allowing
`
`joinder.
`
`D.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Wargaming IPR’s Case Schedule
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and associated rule 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(c) provide that inter partes review proceedings should be completed and
`
`the Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of the review.
`
`1.
`
`The Same Grounds in the Wargaming IPR Petition are
`Asserted in the Blizzard IPR Petition
`
`In this case, joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to issue the decision,
`
`because Petitioner will be joining the grounds on which the Wargaming IPR has
`
`been instituted. As briefly discussed above, the Blizzard IPR Petition asserts only
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`the arguments that the Board has already instituted in the Wargaming IPR. Thus,
`
`there are no new arguments to consider, and joinder should not result in additional
`
`work, let alone a change in schedule, for the Board.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Will Act as an Understudy
`
`As long as Wargaming remains a petitioner in the joined IPRs, Petitioner
`
`agrees to take a limited role without a separate opportunity to actively participate.
`
`For example, Petitioner will agree to not file separate written submissions, pose
`
`questions at depositions (i.e., cross-examine) involving GAT’s witnesses, or argue
`
`at oral hearing. The Board considers these concessions in favor of granting
`
`joinder. SL Corp. v. Adaptive Headlamp Techs., Inc., IPR2016-01368, Paper 9 at
`
`(stating “[Petitioner of joinder petition]’s willingness to assume a limited role in
`
`the [original] IPR enhances the efficiency gains that will result from joinder”
`
`where petitioner of joinder petition represented that it would not file additional
`
`written submissions, pose questions at depositions or argue at oral hearing); Teva
`
`Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2017-00578, paper 9 at 3 (stating
`
`“[Petitioner of joinder petition] has also agreed to assume a ‘back seat,
`
`‘understudy’ role’ in the joined proceedings, ‘without any right to separate or
`
`additional briefing or discovery, unless authorized by the Board upon a request to
`
`address an issue that is unique to [Petitioner of joinder petition]’” and finding that
`
`joinder “based upon the conditions stated in [Petitioner for joinder petition]’s
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder will have little or no impact on the timing, cost, or presentation
`
`of the trial on the instituted grounds”). Only in the event that Wargaming settles
`
`will Petitioner seek to become active in the joined IPRs.
`
`Moreover, as GAT is already defending its patent against the same
`
`arguments, there will be no additional burden on GAT. As Petitioner will assume a
`
`passive role, GAT will not have to address additional pages of argument if
`
`Petitioner is joined.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Will Rely on Wargaming’s Expert Upon Joinder
`
`Although Petitioner submitted an expert declaration using a different expert
`
`than Wargaming, Petitioner’s efforts to minimize differences in expert opinion
`
`allow the Wargaming IPR schedule to remain unaffected. The Board has
`
`previously favored permitting joinder when a joinder party agrees to rely on the
`
`testimony of the expert in the original petition. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v.
`
`Allergan, Inc., IPR2017-00578, paper 9 at 3 (finding joinder appropriate in part
`
`because “[a]lthough [Petitioner of joinder petition] also submitted the declaration
`
`of Dr. Chambliss, [Petitioner of joinder petition] has agreed to rely on [Petitioner
`
`of original petition]’s expert, Dr. Amidi, and withdraw the expert declaration of
`
`Dr. Chambliss.”); Intel Corp. v. DSS Tech. Management, Inc., IPR2016-00287 and
`
`IPR2016-01311, Paper 8 at 3 (Aug. 29, 2016)(finding joinder where Petitioner [of
`
`joinder petition] agreed that “while [original petitioner] participates in the
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding, Petitioner [of joinder petition] will rely on the testimony of [original
`
`petitioner]’s expert” and that “[i]n the event that [original petitioner]’s involvement
`
`in this proceeding is terminated, Petitioner [of joinder petition] agreed that it would
`
`make its own expert available for cross-examination by Patent Owner.”); SAP
`
`America Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 at 4 (finding that
`
`“[joinder petitioner] proposes procedural protections that allow [original petitioner]
`
`to retain control over the joined proceeding”, there is “no apparent need to alter the
`
`Scheduling Order”, and that “the impact of joinder on the Unified IPR will be
`
`minimal” where joinder petitioner stated it would withdraw the declaration of its
`
`expert and instead rely on the expert declaration of the original petitioner).
`
`The circumstances are similar here. In the Blizzard IPR, Petitioner
`
`submitted the expert declaration of Mr. David Crane.2 See Ex. 1017. Mr. Crane
`
`relies upon and agrees with the analyses and conclusions set forth in Mr. Garry
`
`Kitchen’s Declaration that is filed in the Wargaming IPR, and also attached to the
`
`
`2 Due to conflicts, Petitioner could not retain Mr. Garry Kitchen as an expert
`
`in the Blizzard IPR. See ZTE Corp. v. Adaptix, Inc., IPR2015-01184, Paper 10 at 5
`
`(denying motion for joinder and noting “Petitioner’s Motion does not explain why
`
`a declaration from a different proffered expert was thought to be necessary for its
`
`Petition.”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Blizzard IPR. Compare Ex. 1017 (Decl. of Mr. Crane) with Ex. 1003 (Decl. of Mr.
`
`Kitchen).
`
`In order to minimize impact on the Wargaming IPR schedule, Petitioner
`
`agrees to rely on Wargaming’s expert in the event that joinder is granted as long as
`
`Wargaming continues to participate in the IPR proceeding. Additionally, based on
`
`the progress of the Wargaming IPR, Petitioner will withdraw its expert declaration
`
`of Mr. David Crane and proceed using the arguments and evidence put forth by
`
`Wargaming in its IPR.
`
`But, even if Wargaming withdraws from the Wargaming IPR and Petitioner
`
`continues with its own expert, there would be little to no impact on the Board’s
`
`ability to complete its review in a timely manner. Moreover, there would be only a
`
`modest impact on the Patent Owner given that little additional preparation would
`
`be needed for the deposition of Petitioner’s expert beyond that required of
`
`Wargaming’s expert.
`
`Thus, no schedule adjustments are necessary upon joinder for several
`
`reasons: (1) no new arguments are presented, (2) Petitioner agrees to assume a
`
`limited “understudy” role, and (3) Petitioner will rely on Wargaming’s expert, so
`
`long as Wargaming remains a party, and withdraw its own expert based on the
`
`progress of the Wargaming IPR.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Discovery and Briefing Will Be Simplified
`
`As briefly mentioned above, assuming Wargaming’s continued participation,
`
`Petitioner agrees to assume an understudy role, with respect to Wargaming, and to
`
`consolidate filings and discovery in the joined proceeding. With respect to
`
`consolidated filings, any papers jointly submitted by Petitioner and Wargaming
`
`will not exceed the normal word count or page limits for a single party set forth in
`
`the rules. Moreover, Petitioner agrees to not file separate written submissions,
`
`pose questions at depositions (i.e., cross-examine) of GAT’s witnesses, or argue at
`
`oral hearing.
`
`Accordingly, if joinder is granted, briefing and discovery in the joined
`
`proceeding will be no more complex than if Petitioner had never been joined.
`
`Consolidated briefing and discovery will ensure a simplified and efficient joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`F.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice Wargaming or Patent Owner
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or Wargaming.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed ground for instituting an IPR is identical to the instituted
`
`ground in the Wargaming IPR. Joinder will not affect the timing of the
`
`Wargaming IPR, and any extension to the schedule that may be required is
`
`permitted by law and the applicable rules. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`G. This Joinder Petition Should Be Granted Under the Follow-On
`Petition Factors
`
`Although Petitioner previously filed a petition that ultimately was not
`
`instituted, the factors regarding IPR institutions of follow-on petitioners weigh in
`
`favor of granting institution of Petitioner’s joinder IPR petition. The Board has
`
`previously set forth factors for exercising discretion to deny institution of an IPR of
`
`follow-on petitions: (1) whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`
`directed to the same claims of the same patent; (2) whether at the time of filing of
`
`the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition
`
`or should have known of it; (3) whether at the time of filing of the second petition
`
`the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first
`
`petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first
`
`petitioner; (4) the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner
`
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second
`
`petitioner; (5) whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time
`
`elapsed between the filings of multiple petitioners directed to the same claims of
`
`the same patent; (6) the finite resources of the Board; (7) the requirement under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the
`
`date on which the Director notices institution of review. General Plastic Indus.
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16. As shown
`
`below, these factors weigh in favor of granting institution of the Blizzard IPR.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Same Petitioner Previously Filed a Petition
`Directed to the Same Claims of the Same Patent;
`
`As mentioned, Petitioner filed an IPR on the ’243 patent on claims 1 through
`
`8, while the Wargaming petition on the ‘243 patent covers claims 1-7. Activision
`
`Blizzard, Inc. v. Game and Technology Co., Ltd, IPR2016-01918, Paper 1.
`
`2.
`
`Whether at the Time of Filing of the First Petition the
`Petitioner Knew of The Prior Art Asserted in The Second
`Petition or Should Have Known of It;
`
`At the time of the filing of the first petition filed by Petitioner on September
`
`30, 2016, Petitioner was unaware of the prior art combination (i.e., Levine in view
`
`of D&D) on which the Wargaming IPR was instituted. Petitioner became aware
`
`of this combination after Wargaming filed its IPR on March 13, 2017. Despite a
`
`skilled searcher conducting a diligent prior art search, the combination asserted in
`
`Wargaming’s IPR was not discovered.
`
`3.
`
`Whether at the Time of Filing of the Second Petition the
`Petitioner Already Received the Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response to the First Petition or Received the
`Board’s Decision on Whether to Institute Review in the
`First Petitioner;
`
`The Board denied institution of Petitioner’s earlier-filed petition on March
`
`21, 2017.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The Length of Time That Elapsed Between the Time the
`Petitioner Learned of the Prior Art Asserted in the Second
`Petition and the Filing of the Second Petitioner;
`
`The length of time that elapsed between the time Petitioner learned of prior
`
`art in the Wargaming petition (filed March 13, 2017) and the filing of the
`
`corresponding joinder petition (November 6, 2017) is approximately eight months.
`
`5.
`
`Whether the Petitioner Provides Adequate Explanation for
`the Time Elapsed Between the Filings of Multiple Petition
`Directed to the Same Claims of the Same Patent;
`
`Petitioner became aware of the combination instituted in the Wargaming
`
`IPR when the Wargaming IPR was filed on March 13, 2017. At the time when
`
`this prior art became available, Petitioner was time-barred from filing any
`
`additional IPR petitions.3 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner timely moved for joinder
`
`once the Wargaming IPR was instituted.
`
`Here, Petitioner has not filed the corresponding joinder petition in order to
`
`“abuse [] the review process by repeated attacks on patents.” General Plastic
`
`Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 17.
`
`Instead, Petitioner is attempting to join an IPR that was originally filed by another
`
`interested party, Wargaming. Moreover, as stated above, Petitioner plans to merely
`
`
`3 Petitioner notes that Wargaming is not a real party in interest or in privity
`
`with Petitioner such that the time bar would allow Petitioner to file the
`
`corresponding joinder petition within the one-year period.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`act as an understudy in the IPR proceeding and only seeks to ensure the IPR
`
`continues in the event Wargaming settles with GAT—there is no intent to
`
`unilaterally launch multiple attacks on the ’243 patent.
`
`6.
`
`The Finite Resources of the Board;
`
`In order maximize efficiency of the Board’s finite resources, Petitioner
`
`agrees to join the Wargaming IPR in a manner that should not affect the schedule
`
`set forth by the Board. See supra Parts IV.D and IV.E.
`
`7.
`
`The Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(A)(11) to Issue a
`Final Determination Not Later Than 1 Year After the Date
`on Which the Director Notices Institution of Review.
`
`As stated above in Part IV.D, Petitioner proposes joining the Wargaming
`
`IPR in a manner that should not impact the schedule set forth by the Board—
`
`allowing the Board sufficient time to determine institution within the one-year
`
`period set forth in the Wargaming IPR. Under the circumstances, granting
`
`institution of the Blizzard IPR and joining it with the Wargaming IPR is
`
`appropriate and within the Board’s discretion.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 1-7 of the ’243 patent and grant joinder of
`
`the Blizzard IPR and the Wargaming IPR.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 6, 2017
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Sharon A. Israel/
` Sharon A. Israel (Reg. No. 41,867)
`(sisrael@shb.com)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`600 Travis St., Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002-2926
`Phone: (713) 546-5689
`Fax: (713) 227-9508
`
`John D. Garretson (Reg. No. 39,681)
` Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
`jgarretson@shb.com
`Phone: (816) 474-6550
`Fax: (816) 421-5547
`
`Tanya Chaney (Reg. No. 55,080)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`600 Travis St., Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002-2926
`tchaney@shb.com
`Phone: (713) 227-8008
`Fax: (713) 227-9508
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, the undersigned certifies that on November
`
`6, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this MOTION FOR JOINDER TO
`
`RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,682,243
`
`(CASE NO. IPR2017-01082) UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b), was provided via Priority Mail Express or by means at least as fast and
`
`reliable as Priority Mail Express, postage prepaid, to the Patent Owner at the
`
`correspondence address of the attorney of record for the ’243 Patent shown in
`
`USPTO PAIR:
`
`H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
`1894 Preston White Drive
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`Additionally, the same were also served upon counsel for the subject
`
`patent’s owner, in the Wargaming IPR,
`
`William Mandir
`Peter Park
`John Bird
`Christopher Bezak
`Fadi Kiblawi
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`upon counsel for Petitioner, Wargaming Group Limited, in the Wargaming
`
`IPR,
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Harper Batts
`Jeffrey Liang
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`because that is likely to effect service.
`
`The undersigned also certifies that on November 6, 2017, a complete and
`
`entire copy of MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED INTER PARTES
`
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,682,243 (CASE NO. IPR2017-01082)
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) was emailed to the
`
`above-identified individuals at the following email addresses:
`
`sbergeson@park-law.com
`
`wbrooks@park-law.com
`
`ckliner@park-law.com
`
`jhkim@park-law.com
`
`hpark@park-law.com
`
`lsalzano@park-law.com
`
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`
`pspark@sughrue.com
`
`jbird@sughrue.com
`
`cbezak@sughrue.com
`
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`harper.batts@bakerbotts.com
`
`jeffrey.liang@bakerbotts.com
`
`Dated: November 6, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Sharon A. Israel/
` Sharon A. Israel (Reg. No. 41,867)
`(sisrael@shb.com)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`600 Travis St., Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002-2926
`Phone: (713) 546-5689
`Fax: (713) 227-9508
`
`John D. Garretson (Reg. No. 39,681)
` Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
`jgarretson@shb.com
`Phone: (816) 474-6550
`Fax: (816) 421-5547
`
`Tanya Chaney (Reg. No. 55,080)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`600 Travis St., Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002-2926
`tchaney@shb.com
`Phone: (713) 227-8008
`Fax: (713) 227-9508
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`19
`
`