throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 9
` Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00403
`Patent 8,805,948 B2
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018‐00403
`
`Patent 8,805,948 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Cavium, Inc. (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) for inter
`partes review of claims 1, 3, 6–8, 17, 19, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,805,948 B2 (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On the same
`day as filing the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder. Paper 3
`(“Joinder Motion” or “Mot.”). The Joinder Motion seeks to join Cavium as
`a petitioner in Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Case IPR2018-00234 (“the 234
`IPR”). Mot. 1. The Joinder Motion indicates Intel Corp., Petitioner in the
`234 IPR, does not oppose Cavium’s request to join that proceeding. Id.
`However, the Joinder Motion is silent regarding Patent Owner’s position
`regarding the Joinder Motion.
`Alacritech, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file an Opposition to the
`Joinder Motion. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response that is silent
`regarding the Joinder Motion. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`As explained further below, we institute trial in this inter partes
`review on the same ground as instituted in IPR2018-00234 and we grant
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A.
`Institution of Trial
`In IPR2018-00234, Petitioner Intel challenges the patentability of
`claims 1, 3, 6–8, 17, 19, 21, and 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018‐00403
`
`Patent 8,805,948 B2
`
`over the combined disclosures of Thia,1 Tanenbaum96,2 and Stevens2.3
`IPR2018-00234 Paper 2, 18. After considering the Petition and the Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2018-00234, we instituted trial for the
`above-identified ground of unpatentability. See IPR2018-00234, Paper 7.
`Petitioner here (Cavium) represents that this Petition is substantively
`identical to the Petition in IPR2018-00234 challenging the same claims
`based on the same ground. Mot. 1. We have considered the relevant
`Petitions and we agree with Petitioner’s representation that this Petition is
`substantially identical to the Petition in IPR2018-00234. Compare Pet., with
`IPR2018-00234, Paper 2.
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not point out any
`differences from its Preliminary Response in the 234 IPR. After reviewing
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response here and in the 234 IPR, we find the
`two responses to be substantially identical. Compare Prelim. Resp., with
`IPR2108-00234 Paper 6.
`Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons stated in our Decision to
`Institute in IPR2018-00234, we conclude Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged
`claim and we institute trial in this proceeding for claims 1, 3, 6–8, 17, 19, 21,
`and 22 on the same ground as in IPR2018-00234.
`
`1 Y.H. Thia and C.M. Woodside, A Reduced Operation Protocol Engine
`(ROPE) for a Multiple-Layer Bypass Architecture, 1995 (“Thia,” Ex. 1015).
`2 Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, Third Edition, 1996
`(“Tanenbaum96,” Ex. 1006).
`3 W. Richard Stevens et al., TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2, 1995
`(“Stevens2,” Ex. 1013).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018‐00403
`
`Patent 8,805,948 B2
`
`B. Motion for Joinder
`Based on authority delegated to us by the Director, we have discretion
`to join an inter partes review to a previously instituted inter partes review.
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Section 315(c) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the
`Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her
`discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who
`properly files a petition under section 311.” Id.
`Without opposition to the Joinder Motion from any party, we grant
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with the 234 IPR subject to the condition
`that:
`
`In the joined proceeding, Petitioner here (i.e., Cavium,
`Inc.) will be bound by all substantive and procedural filings and
`representations of current Petitioner in IPR2018-00234 (i.e.,
`Intel Corp.), without a separate opportunity to be heard, whether
`orally or in writing, unless and until the joined proceeding is
`terminated with respect to Petitioner Intel in IPR2018-00234.
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that joinder based upon the
`above-noted condition will have little or no impact on the timing, cost, or
`presentation of the trial on the instituted ground. Moreover, discovery and
`briefing will be simplified if the proceedings are joined.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018‐00403
`
`Patent 8,805,948 B2
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`After due consideration of the record before us, and for the foregoing
`
`reasons, it is:
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`hereby instituted for claims 1, 3, 6–8, 17, 19, 21, and 22 of the ’948 patent as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the combined disclosures of Thia,
`Tanenbaum96, and Stevens2;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2018-00234 is granted, and Cavium, Inc. is joined as a petitioner in
`IPR2018-00234;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground on which an inter partes
`review was instituted in Case IPR2018-00234 remain unchanged, and no
`other grounds are instituted in the joined proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner here (i.e., Cavium, Inc.) will be
`bound by all substantive and procedural filings and representations of
`current Petitioner in IPR2018-00234 (i.e., Intel Corp.), without a separate
`opportunity to be heard, whether orally or in writing, unless and until the
`proceeding is terminated with respect to Intel Corp;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the schedule for this proceeding shall be
`governed by the current schedule and any changes in the schedule for
`IPR2018-00234;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2018-00403 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and that all future filings are to be made only in IPR2018-
`00234;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2019-00234 for all
`further submissions shall be changed to add Petitioner (Cavium, Inc.) as a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018‐00403
`
`Patent 8,805,948 B2
`
`named Petitioner, and to indicate by footnote the joinder of Petitioner
`Cavium, Inc. to that proceeding, as indicated in the attached sample case
`caption; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record of IPR2018-00234.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`6
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORP., and
`CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-002344
`Patent 8,805,948 B2
`
`4 Cavium, Inc, which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00403, has been
`joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`

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