IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,033,135
`Filing Date: June 4, 1997
`Issue Date: December 14, 1999
`Title: MODULAR SECURITY DEVICE
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR JOINDER, COORDINATION, AND A SHORTENED TIME
`TO FILE A PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01002
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,033,135
`Filing Date: June 4, 1997
`Issue Date: December 14, 1999
`Title: MODULAR SECURITY DEVICE
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR JOINDER, COORDINATION, AND A SHORTENED TIME
`TO FILE A PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01002
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner Kingston’s motion exceeds the scope of a request for joinder and
`
`requests relief for which the rules expressly require prior authorization. Absent
`
`authorization, which Kingston neither sought nor received, the Board must deny
`
`entry of this omnibus motion. Should the Board grant authorization
`
`notwithstanding the violation of the Board’s rules, the Board should deny each of
`
`Kingston’s three requests. First, the Board should deny Kingston’s request for
`
`coordination of proceedings because Kingston’s petition is time-barred absent
`
`joinder. Second, the Board should deny Kingston’s request for a shortened
`
`preliminary response period because Kingston has not met its burden to show a
`
`sufficient need or any entitlement to impose such an unfairly prejudicial limitation
`
`on SPEX. Third, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny joinder because
`
`Kingston has not identified a legitimate reason why it should be given a second
`
`bite at the ’135 Patent when (a) Kingston’s own challenges to the ’135 Patent have
`
`been denied institution or have been found insufficient; and (b) Petitioners’ serial
`
`challenges to the ’135 Patent used this Board’s prior institution decisions as a road
`
`map to ultimately attain institution. Thus, for the reasons set forth herein, SPEX
`
`respectfully submits that the motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II. Kingston’s Omnibus Motion Must Be Denied Entry
`
`Kingston’s motion must be denied entry in its entirety because it requests
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`relief for which it did not seek authorization. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(a)-(b) (“Relief,
`
`other than a petition requesting the institution of trial, must be requested in the
`
`form of a motion. . . . A motion will not be entered without Board authorization.”).
`
`Without obtaining SPEX’s position and the Board’s prior authorization, Kingston
`
`moved for two forms of relief that require prior authorization: a coordination of
`
`parallel proceedings and a shortened preliminary response period. Neither motion
`
`constitutes the kind for which authorization is automatically granted. Seeking
`
`authorization would not have been impractical, because at the time of filing this
`
`petition, Kingston’s counsel was aware of SPEX’s representation by the same
`
`counsel in case numbers IPR2017-00430 (institution denied), IPR2017-00824
`
`(institution denied), IPR2017-00825 (institution denied), IPR2017-01021
`
`(pending), IPR2018-00082 (pending), and IPR2018-00084 (pending), and
`
`Kingston’s counsel knew that the same Panel presided over the preceding pending
`
`IPRs, particularly the IPR to which Kingston seeks to join. The rules are clear:
`
`without prior authorization, this motion will not be entered into the record.
`
`Because Kington’s motion must be denied entry, the Petition must be denied
`
`institution as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b).
`
`III. Kingston’s Motion to Shorten the Time to File a Preliminary Response
`Is Improper and Should Be Denied
`
`Kingston’s request to shorten the time to file a preliminary response should
`
`be denied because it is improper, and Kingston has failed to meet its burden to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`show any entitlement to the requested relief. Despite being in regular contact with
`
`SPEX’s counsel in related proceedings (e.g., IPR2017-01021), Kingston did not
`
`seek SPEX’s position or attempt to contact the Panel regarding this request.
`
`Additionally, Kingston cites no authority supporting its request and identifies no
`
`urgency that sufficiently merits deprivation of the full three months typically
`
`prescribed to patent owners under similar circumstances. Petitioner’s arguments
`
`regarding the similarity of petitions are irrelevant. See, e.g., IPR2018-00090,
`
`Paper 12 at 2.
`
`SPEX does not waive any portion of the 3-month period to file a preliminary
`
`response as prescribed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) and intends to file a preliminary
`
`response1 by August 10, 2018. In addition to addressing whether institution should
`
`be denied under the General Plastic factors, SPEX may file a preliminary response
`
`raising additional arguments responding to the records relating to the ’135 Patent
`
`and presenting additional evidence in the form of expert testimony. Accordingly,
`
`Kingston’s motion places an undue burden and unfairly prejudices SPEX and
`
`should be denied.
`
`IV. Kingston’s Motion for Coordination Is Improper and Should Be Denied
`
`
`
`Kingston’s alternative motion for coordination incorrectly presumes that
`
`institution is proper without joinder to an instituted proceeding. However, absent
`
`
`1 Patent Owner acknowledges the Board’s discretion to deny these motions and to deny institution of the
`accompanying petition prior to the filing of a preliminary response, and Patent Owner would not oppose such action
`by the Board.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`joinder, Kingston’s petition is time-barred under 35 U.C.S. § 315(b), and Kingston
`
`identifies no authority to the contrary. Accordingly, Kingston has not shown any
`
`entitlement to coordination as an alternative form a relief absent joinder, and the
`
`motion should be denied.
`
`V.
`
` Kingston’s Motion for Joinder Should Be Denied
`
`Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant
`
`joinder is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). When
`
`exercising that discretion, the Board construes the relevant authorities to secure the
`
`just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`As shown herein, the circumstances here warrant a denial of joinder.
`
`A. The ’135 Patent’s History at the PTAB Identifies a Clear Trend of
`Improper Road-Mapping at the Expense of Patent Owner and the
`Board
`
`In September 2016, SPEX concurrently filed seven complaints alleging
`
`infringement of the ’135 Patent by certain defendants, including Kingston and
`
`Western Digital. Paper 7 at 2. Shortly thereafter, defendants embarked on what
`
`will amount to a two-and-a-half-year road-mapping campaign against the ’135
`
`Patent before the PTAB.
`
`On January 31, 2017, Kingston filed a petition in case number IPR2017-
`
`00825 (“825-IPR”) alleging that claims 55 and 57 of the ’135 Patent were
`
`unpatentable over Jones, Security Modules, Common Interface Specification,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`Schwartz, and Kimura. 825-IPR, Paper 2 at 3-4. The Board denied institution
`
`on all grounds. 825-IPR, Paper 8.
`
`On March 14, 2017, Kingston filed a second petition in case number
`
`IPR2017-01021 (“1021-IPR”) alleging again that claims 55-58 of the ’135 Patent
`
`were unpatentable over Jones, Security Modules, Common Interface
`
`Specification, Schwartz, and Kimura. 1021-IPR, Paper 2 at 3-4. The Board
`
`denied institution on all grounds involving claims 55-57 because Kingston again
`
`failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 55-57 are unpatentable over the
`
`same references. 1021-IPR, Paper 7 at 30. The Board authorized review on claim
`
`58. Id. at 32. The Board later instituted the petition as to all grounds in
`
`compliance with post-SAS procedures. 1021-IPR, Paper 20. The Board recently
`
`granted Kingston’s motion to submit supplemental information on claims 55-58.
`
`1021-IPR, Paper 30.
`
`On October 16, 2017, after having reviewed two preliminary responses by
`
`SPEX and two institution decisions by the PTAB, Western Digital filed a third
`
`petition in case number IPR2018-00084 (“84-IPR”) alleging that claims 55-58 of
`
`the ’135 Patent were unpatentable over the Harari, Dumas, and PCMCIA
`
`System Architecture references. 84-IPR, Paper 1. In compliance with post-SAS
`
`procedures, the Board instituted the 84-IPR while finding that Western Digital
`
`failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 56 and 57 were unpatentable
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`over Harari and Anderson. 84-IPR, Paper 14.
`
`Along the way, defendants have inefficiently consumed the limited
`
`resources of Patent Owner SPEX and the PTAB. Kingston and its joint defense
`
`group have engaged in incremental petitioning which has allowed it to
`
`impermissibly benefit from SPEX’s prior arguments and the Board’s prior
`
`decisions. No efficiencies will be gained by allowing otherwise time-barred
`
`Kingston (or any other co-defendant who received a complaint in September 2016)
`
`to insert itself into this proceeding. SPEX respectfully urges the Board to deny the
`
`request for joinder and the underlying petition before SPEX and the Board waste
`
`additional resources.2
`
`B. Kingston Is an Otherwise Time-Barred Petitioner and Has
`Identified No Legitimate Reason for Joinder
`
`Joinder should be denied because Kingston fails to identify a legitimate basis
`
`for joinder to the 1002-IPR. Instead, Kingston lists boilerplate answers to other
`
`factors (i.e., new grounds, impact, and simplification), conceding that the 1002-
`
`IPR involves redundant grounds on the same prior art and same claims.
`
`In its motion, Kingston relies on a frequently-cited Kyocera case to set forth
`
`the requirements for joinder, including that the petitioner articulate a reason to join
`
`the proceeding. Mot. at 3. In IPR2013-00004, the joining party expressed its
`
`2 As noted herein, Patent Owner intends to submit a preliminary response addressing General Plastic factors and
`additional reasons why the Board should deny institution. However, the Board is well-aware of the record of the 84-
`IPR and the related proceedings. Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board exercise its discretion to deny
`institution before the preliminary response is due on August 10, 2018.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`belief that joinder was the only option to participate in the review of the challenged
`
`patents and that the petitioner’s reliance on the joining party’s expert’s testimony
`
`in the proceeding necessitated the joining party’s participation in any cross-
`
`examination of its expert. IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 2-3.
`
`Here, Kingston presents no such rationale. This is not Kingston’s only
`
`chance at review. Kingston admits knowledge of the 84-IPR prior art, including
`
`the Harari, Dumas, and PCMCIA System Architecture references, when it filed its
`
`previous 825-IPR and 1021 IPR petitions. Mot. at 8. Instead of including the
`
`invalidity arguments raised in the 84-IPR when it filed its previous 825-IPR and
`
`1021-IPR petitions, Kingston sat on its hands and engaged in a wait-and-see
`
`strategy. Kingston does not identify any new arguments, testimony, evidence,
`
`and/or issues, admitting that it will not introduce any argument or discovery not
`
`already introduced by Western Digital. Mot. at 8-9. While Kingston’s boilerplate
`
`points go to the impact of joinder and simplification of already-joined proceedings,
`
`it presents no reason why it requests joinder. Other than increasing expenses for
`
`SPEX, Kingston has no legitimate reason to join this proceeding. Without any
`
`legitimate reason to join a proceeding (and potentially no proceeding to join), the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion to deny this motion and deny institution of the
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, and any additional reasons the Board may
`
`deem relevant to the motion, Patent Owner SPEX respectfully requests denial of
`
`the motion in its entirety and denial of institution.
`
`Dated: June 4, 2018
`
`
`
`By: /Peter Lambrianakos /
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01002
`PATENT NO. 6,003,135
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`A copy of SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER, COORDINATION, AND A
`
`SHORTENED TIME TO FILE A PRELIMINARY RESPONSE has been served
`
`on Petitioner’s counsel of record as follows:
`
`David Hoffman (Reg. No. 54,174)
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR37307-0013IP3@fr.com
`
`Martha Hopkins (Reg. No. 46,277)
`Law Offices of S. J. Christine Yang
`17220 Newhope Street
`Suites 101-102
`Fountain Valley, CA 92708
`IPR@sjclawpc.com
`
`
`June 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos /
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
