throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 9
`Entered: July 27, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`On April 27, 2018, Nokia of America Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed
`a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–5
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,476,952 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’952 patent”). Concurrently with the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for
`Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”), requesting that this proceeding be joined with
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Case IPR2017-
`02189 (“2189 IPR”). Mot. 1. Oyster Optics, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed an
`Opposition to the Motion for Joinder (Paper 7, “Opp.”) and confirmed that it
`does not intend to file a Preliminary Response (Ex. 3001). Petitioner filed a
`Reply in Support of Motion for Joinder. Paper 8, “Reply.”
`For the reasons discussed below, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for
`Joinder.
`B. Related Proceedings and Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`In the 2189 IPR, we instituted inter partes review of the ’952 patent
`on the following two grounds:
`1. Claims 1–3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
`over Kaneda1 and Schneider2; and
`2. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
`Kaneda, Schneider, and Heflinger.3
`
`
`1 JP Pat. App. Pub. S61-127236 (Original Japanese Unexamined Patent, Ex.
`1005; Declaration Regarding English Translation, Ex. 1006; English
`Translation, Ex. 1007).
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 6,700,907 B2 (Ex. 1026).
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 6,396,605 B1 (Ex. 1025).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`
`2189 IPR, Paper 9, 34; 2189 IPR, Paper 11, 2.
`The Petition in this proceeding challenges the same claims on
`identical grounds of unpatentability, and relies on the same evidence,
`including the same technical expert testimony, as presented in the 2189 IPR.
`Pet. 1; Mot. 5. Patent Owner confirmed that it did not intend to file a
`Preliminary Response and thus has not presented any arguments regarding
`the merits of the Petition in this case. Ex. 3001.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`An inter partes review may be joined with another inter partes
`review, subject to certain statutory provisions:
`(c) JOINDER.—If 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 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`parties review under section 314.
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (“Any request for joinder
`must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”).
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing
`and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (April 24, 2013). As the moving party,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested
`relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`As an initial matter, the present Motion for Joinder meets the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) because the Motion was filed on
`April 27, 2018, which is not later than one month after the 2189 IPR was
`instituted on March 28, 2018.
`In addition and as noted above, the present Petition challenges the
`same claims on the same grounds of unpatentability, and relies on the same
`evidence, including the same technical expert testimony, as presented in the
`2189 IPR. Pet. 1; Mot. 5. Patent Owner has not presented any arguments
`regarding the merits of the Petition in this case. Ex. 3001.
`For the above reasons, and in particular the fact that the present
`Petition is virtually identical to the petition in the 2189 IPR, we determine
`Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) that its
`Petition in this case warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Petitioner further contends joinder will not affect the schedule in the
`2189 IPR, agrees to assume an “understudy” role, and provides the
`following conditions that would apply as long as Cisco and Oclaro (“the
`2189 Petitioners”) remain active parties:
`(a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding be
`consolidated with the filings of Cisco and Oclaro, unless a
`filing solely concerns issues that do not involve Cisco or
`Oclaro;
`(b) Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds
`not already instituted by the Board, or introduce any argument
`or discovery not already introduced by Cisco or Oclaro;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`
`(c) Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent
`Owner and Cisco or Oclaro concerning discovery and/or
`depositions; and
`(d) Petitioner at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross
`examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for Cisco or
`Oclaro in this proceeding alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53
`or any agreement between Patent Owner and Cisco or Oclaro.
`Mot. 5–7. Based on these conditions, Petitioner contends “joinder with this
`IPR proceeding will not introduce any additional arguments, briefing, or
`need for discovery.” Id. at 7.
`Patent Owner opposes the Motion for Joinder. In particular, Patent
`Owner contends that the “concessions” proposed by Petitioner for its
`“understudy” role actually permit Petitioner “to take a much more active role
`in the proceedings without first seeking and receiving Board approval.”
`Opp. 1. Specifically, Patent Owner points to the concession above in which
`“all filings by Petitioner [] in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the
`filings of [the 2189 Petitioners], unless a filing solely concerns issues that do
`not involve [the 2189 Petitioners].” Id. at 2. Patent Owner expresses the
`concern that this concession would allow Petitioner to have the consolidated
`filing plus Petitioner’s own substantive submission. Id.4 Thus, Patent
`Owner contends that the Board should (1) deny joinder and dismiss the
`Petition without institution, or (2) if joinder is granted, relegate Petitioner to
`“a true ‘understudy’ role in IPR2017-02189 and [permit Petitioner] to
`submit any filing only after first seeking (and receiving) authorization from
`
`
`4 Patent Owner also notes that joinder will not avoid redundant submissions
`as Petitioner argues because Petitioner is time barred under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(b). Id. at 5–6.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`
`the Board, upon a showing that [Petitioner’s] intended filing involves an
`issue unique to [Petitioner] or states a point of disagreement related to the
`consolidated petitioners’ filing.” Id. at 6.
`In reply, Petitioner clarifies that it “did not intend to carve out any
`exceptions from its role as an understudy to” the 2189 Petitioners. Reply 1.
`Petitioner further states that it would not make any submissions “without
`first seeking (and receiving) authorization from the Board.” Id. at 2.
`Based on the facts and circumstances discussed above, we determine
`Petitioner has established good cause for joining this proceeding with the
`2189 IPR. Specifically, we find that joinder of this proceeding with the
`2189 IPR is unlikely to require any delay or modification to the scheduling
`order already in place for the 2189 IPR. We also determine that Patent
`Owner will not be prejudiced unduly by the joinder of this proceeding. We
`accept Petitioner’s representation that it did not intend to suggest it could file
`its own substantive papers in the joined case without seeking authorization
`from the Board. See Reply 1–2. Thus, we determine that granting the
`Motion for Joinder under these circumstances would help “secure the just,
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(b). For the above reasons, we conclude that the Motion for Joinder
`should be granted.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is granted, and
`Petitioner is joined as a petitioner in IPR2017-02189;
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2018-00984 is hereby joined with
`IPR2017-02189;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds of unpatentability on which
`trial was instituted in IPR2017-02189 remain unchanged and remain the
`only grounds on which trial has been instituted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in
`IPR2017-02189 (2189 IPR, Paper 10) as modified by the parties’ Joint
`Stipulation (2189 IPR, Paper 12), shall remain unchanged and shall govern
`the joined proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have an “understudy” role
`in the 2189 IPR under the conditions reproduced above (Mot. 5–7);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and 2189 Petitioners shall file
`all papers jointly unless Petitioner first receives authorization from the
`Board to make a separate filing; such authorization shall require a showing
`that Petitioner’s intended filing involves an issue unique to Petitioner or
`states a point of disagreement related to the 2189 Petitioners’ filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2018-00984 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined proceeding shall be
`made in IPR2017-02189;
`FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Decision be entered into
`the records of IPR2017-02189 and IPR2018-00984; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2017-02189 be
`modified to reflect the joinder of this proceeding with IPR2017-02189 in
`accordance with the attached example.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00984
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Benjamin Pleune
`ben.pleune@alston.com
`
`Scott Stevens
`scott.stevens@alston.com
`
`John Haynes
`john.haynes@alston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wayne Helge
`whelge@dbjg.com
`
`James Wilson
`jwilson@dbjg.com
`
`Aldo Noto
`anoto@davidsonberquist.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`Example Case Caption for Joined Proceeding
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., OCLARO, INC., and
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-021891
`
`Patent 6,476,952 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2018-00984 has been joined with Case IPR2017-02189.
`
`9
`
`

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