IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY CORP.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-01282
`Patent No. 7,167,487
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY CORP.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-01282
`Patent No. 7,167,487
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner BlackBerry Corp. respectfully submits this Reply in
`
`Support of its Motion for Joinder with Case No. IPR2019-00222.
`
`II. Argument
`
`BlackBerry’s motion for joinder should be granted for the reasons
`
`explained in the original motion. The motion is timely, the petition is
`
`substantively identical to Apple’s petition in IPR2019-00222, and the
`
`joinder will not impact the schedule in IPR2019-00222 because
`
`BlackBerry has agreed to take an “understudy” role. Patent Owner’s
`
`opposition to the motion for joinder is baseless and largely nonsensical.
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that joinder should be denied because
`
`BlackBerry’s petitions are “cumulative” of earlier petitions, including
`
`Apple’s petitions in IPR2019-00222 and -00252. But the fact that
`
`BlackBerry’s petitions are cumulative—in fact, substantively
`
`identical—to those Apple petitions counsels strongly in favor of joinder,
`
`not against it. See Samsung Elecs., Co., Ltd., et al. v. Raytheon Co.,
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (the
`
`Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`the existing proceeding” (citations omitted, emphasis in original)); Sony
`
`Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB
`
`Oct. 15, 2015).
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that instituting IPRs based on
`
`BlackBerry’s petitions would be inefficient. But this ignores the fact
`
`that the IPRs would be joined with IPR2019-00222 and -00252, with
`
`BlackBerry serving only in an “understudy” role, as explained in
`
`BlackBerry’s original motions. Thus, BlackBerry would be transparent
`
`to the process and would not add any complexity or inefficiency to the
`
`pending proceedings in IPR2019-00222 and -00252. In any event, the
`
`speculative harm from any minor inefficiency added to the proceedings
`
`would be far outweighed by the harm to BlackBerry of losing its
`
`opportunity to challenge the patentability of patents that have been
`
`asserted against it in pending litigation. See Dot Hill Sys. Corp. v.
`
`Crossroads Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00825, Paper 20 at 8 (PTAB Sept. 17,
`
`2015) (granting motion for joinder because “[a]ny potential prejudice to
`
`Patent Owner due to institution in this proceeding and joinder of Dot
`
`Hill, with its agreement to not materially participate unless other
`
`petitioners are dismissed, does not outweigh the prejudice to Dot Hill of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`losing its opportunity to challenge the claims of the ’035 patent before
`
`the Office.”).
`
`Finally, Patent Owner’s citation to Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`Personal Web Tech., LLC, IPR2014-00702, Paper 13 at 6 (PTAB July 24,
`
`2014) is inapposite. Unlike the present case, Unified Patents’ petition
`
`raised new substantive discovery issues regarding who the real parties-
`
`in-interests were. Specifically, the Board found that because the
`
`petitioner Unified Patents, Inc. was “an organization that was formed
`
`by Google Inc. and NetApp Inc., amongst others,” the Patent Owner was
`
`entitled to “additional discovery in order to determine what companies,
`
`if any, fund and control Unified.” Id., Paper 12 at 4-5. The Board
`
`concluded that “[t]his potential for additional discovery presents a new
`
`substantive issue . . . weigh[ing] in favor of denying Unified’s Motion for
`
`Joinder.” Id. at 5-6. No such issues regarding the real parties-in-
`
`interest exist in the present case, and Patent Owner has not identified
`
`any new substantive issues that would require additional discovery in a
`
`joined proceeding. Accordingly, the Unified Patents case is easily
`
`distinguishable, and the Board’s numerous cases holding that joinder is
`
`appropriate under the present circumstances should control the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`analysis.
`
`III. Conclusion
`For the reasons stated above and in BlackBerry’s original motion,
`
`BlackBerry respectfully requests that the Board (1) institute
`
`BlackBerry’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,167,487 filed July 2, 2019, and (2) grant joinder with Apple, Inc. et al.
`
`v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Case No. IPR2019-00222.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 6, 2019
`
`
`Customer Number 22850
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Robert C. Mattson/
`
`Robert C. Mattson
`
` Reg. No. 42,850
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies service
`
`of PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`on the counsel of record for the Patent Owner by filing this document
`
`through the PTAB E2E System as well as delivering a copy via
`
`electronic mail to the following address:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`August 6, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Robert C. Mattson/
`
`Robert C. Mattson
`
`Reg. No. 42,850
`
`
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
