throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 9
`Entered: June 1, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DELL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00372
`Patent 7,337,241 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), 315(c); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00372
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Dell Inc. (“Dell” or “Petitioner”), filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) for
`inter partes review of claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 B2 (“the
`’241 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On the same
`day as filing the Petition, Dell filed a Motion for Joinder. Paper 3 (“Joinder
`Motion” or “Mot.”). The Joinder Motion seeks to join Dell as a party to
`Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Case IPR2017-01392 (“the 1392 IPR”). Mot. 1.
`Previously, Cavium Inc. (“Cavium”) filed a substantively identical petition
`and motion for joinder in IPR2017-01728 (“the 1728 IPR”), and was joined
`as a party to the 1392 IPR. In addition, Wistron Inc. (“Wistron”) filed a
`substantively identical petition and motion for joinder in IPR2018-00328
`(“the 328 IPR”), and was joined as a party to the 1392 IPR.
`The Joinder Motion indicates Intel Corp. (“Intel”), Petitioner in the
`1392 IPR, did not oppose Cavium’s request to join the 1392 IPR, did not
`oppose Wistron’s request to join the 1392 IPR, and does not oppose Dell’s
`motion to join the 1392 IPR. Mot. 1. The Joinder Motion is silent regarding
`Patent Owner’s position regarding the Joinder Motion. Alacritech, Inc.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response that was silent regarding
`specific reference to Dell’s Joinder Motion. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`As explained further below, we institute trial in this inter partes
`review on the same grounds as instituted in IPR2017-01392, IPR2017-1728,
`and IPR2018-00328, and we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00372
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A.
`Institution of Trial
`In the 1392 IPR, Intel challenged the patentability of claims 1–24 of
`the ’241 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Claims challenged
`1–8, 18, 22, and 23
`
`9–17, 19–21, and 24
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Reference(s)
`Erickson,1 Tanenbaum,2
`and Alteon3
`Erickson and Tanenbaum
`§ 103
`IPR2017-01392 Paper 4, 14-15.
`After considering Intel’s Petition and the Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response in the 1392 IPR, we instituted trial for the above-identified
`grounds of unpatentability. See IPR2017-01392 Paper 11, 26.
`Correspondingly, we instituted trial for the above-identified grounds of
`unpatentability in the 1728 IPR and in the 328 IPR.
`Petitioner here (Dell) represents that this Petition is substantively
`identical to Intel’s Petition in IPR2017-01392 and challenges the same
`claims based on the same grounds. 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 IPR2017-01392. Compare Pet. with
`IPR2017-01392 Paper 4.
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not point out any
`differences from its Preliminary Response in the 1392 IPR. However, after
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson,” Ex. 1005).
`2 Computer Networks, A. Tanenbaum, 3rd ed. (1996) (Ex. 1006,
`“Tanenbaum”).
`3 “Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`Performance” by Alteon Networks (Ex. 1033, “Alteon”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-00372
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`
`reviewing Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response here and in the 1392 IPR,
`we find the two responses to be substantially identical, with only one notable
`exception. We note that Patent Owner argues that Intel Corporation
`(“Intel”), for a variety of reasons, should have been named as a real party-in-
`interest fundamentally because Intel is a supplier to, and indemnitor of, Dell
`(a defendant in related infringement litigation). Prelim. Resp. 28–34. In the
`1392 IPR, Patent Owner presented a similar argument in its Preliminary
`Response that Intel should have named Cavium and Dell as real parties-in-
`interest because of the alleged supplier-indemnitor relationships between
`Intel and Dell and between Cavium and Dell. IPR2017-01392 Paper 10, 29–
`38.
`
`We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments. On the record before
`us, for purposes of this Decision, and for similar reasons as in the 1392 IPR,
`we determine there is insufficient evidence that Intel controlled, or had the
`opportunity to control, this Petition and, thus, is not a real party-in-interest.
`See Case IPR2017-01392 Paper 11, 23–24. Moreover, as in the 1392 IPR,
`there is no allegation that naming additional real parties-in-interest would
`bar Petitioner in the instant proceeding. See id. at 19. Accordingly, the
`issue Patent Owner raises is not jurisdictional. See Lumentum Holdings, Inc.
`v. Capella Photonics, Inc., Case IPR2015-00739, slip op. at 6 (PTAB March
`4, 2016) (Paper 38) (precedential).
`Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons stated in our Decision to
`Institute in IPR2017-01392, 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 1–24 on the same
`grounds as in IPR2017-01392.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00372
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Motion for Joinder
`Based on authority delegated to us by the Director, we have discretion
`to join a petitioner for 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.
`We grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with the 1392 IPR, subject to
`the condition that:
`Petitioner here (i.e., Dell Inc.) will be bound by all
`substantive and procedural filings and representations of current
`Petitioner in IPR2017-01392 (i.e., Intel Corp., Cavium Inc., and
`Wistron, Inc.), without a separate opportunity to be heard,
`whether orally or in writing, unless and until the proceeding is
`terminated with respect to Intel Corp., Cavium Inc., and Wistron,
`Inc.
`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 grounds. Moreover, discovery and
`briefing will be simplified if Dell is joined as a party to the 1392 IPR.
`
`
`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 of the ’241 Patent as follows: (1) claims 1–8,
`18, 22, and 23 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Erickson,
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-00372
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`
`Tanenbaum, and Alteon, and (2) claims 9–17, 19–21, and 24 as obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Erickson and Tanenbaum;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2017-01392 is granted, and Dell Inc. is joined as a petitioner in
`IPR2017-01392;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds on which an inter partes
`review was instituted in Case IPR2017-01392 remain unchanged, and no
`other grounds are instituted in the joined proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner here (i.e., Dell Inc.) will be
`bound by all substantive and procedural filings and representations of
`current Petitioner in IPR2017-01392 (i.e., Intel Corp., Cavium, Inc., and
`Wistron, Inc.), without a separate opportunity to be heard, whether orally or
`in writing, unless and until the proceeding is terminated with respect to Intel
`Corp., Cavium Inc. and Wistron, Inc.;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the schedule for this proceeding shall be
`governed by the current schedule and any changes in the schedule for
`IPR2017-01392;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2018-000372 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and that all future filings are to be made only in IPR2017-
`01392;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2017-01392 for all
`further submissions shall be changed to add Petitioner (Dell, Inc.) as a
`named Petitioner, and to indicate by footnote the joinder of Petitioner Dell
`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 IPR2017-01392.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00372
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`For IPR2018-00372:
`Christopher Douglas
`Kirk Bradley
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Christopher.douglas@alston.com
`Kirk.bardley@alston.com
`
`For IPR2017-01392:
`Garland Stephens
`Adrian Percer
`Jeremy Lang
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`jason.lang@weil.com
`
`Patrick McPherson
`David Xue
`Karineh Khachatourian
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`dtxue@duanemorris.com
`karinehk@duanemorris.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jim Glass
`Joseph Paunovich
`Brian Mack
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`brainmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC., WISTRON, INC., and DELL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-013924
`Patent 7,337,241 B2
`
`
`
`
`4 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01728, Wistron, Inc.,
`which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00328, and Dell Inc., which filed a
`Petition in Case IPR2018-00372, have been joined as petitioners 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