throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________________________
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket