`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01283
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY CORP.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01283
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,167,487
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01283
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner’s two IPRs against the ’487 patent (IPR2019-01282 and IPR2019-
`
`01283) are the third and fourth IPRs filed against the same patent. Petitioner’s
`
`petitions are cumulative of the first three petitions, filed by Apple Inc. (IPR2019-
`
`00222, IPR2019-00252) and Microsoft Corporation (IPR2019-00744, IPR2019-
`
`00745). Petitioner challenges the same claims as Apple and Microsoft. Further,
`
`Petitioner’s references are identical to those asserted by Apple and, with the
`
`exception of the TS23.107 reference asserted by Microsoft for each ground, identical
`
`to the references asserted by Microsoft. Patent Owner requests that the Board
`
`exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to reject Petitioner’s petitions and
`
`joinder motions.1
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`Section 315(c) requires that a petition accompanying a request for joinder
`
`“warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c). Here, the Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to
`
`reject Petitioner’s petitions, and consequently its joinder motions, because the same
`
`prior art and arguments are pending before the Board in the Apple IPRs (IPR2019-
`
`00222 and IPR2019-00252) and the Microsoft IPRs (IPR2019-00744 and IPR2019-
`
`00745). Before Petitioner filed its petitions and joinder motions, the Board had
`
`already issued decisions for institution in the Apple IPRs. See IPR2019-00222,
`
`
`1 Patent Owner reserves the right to file a preliminary response more fully
`articulating the reasons for denying the petition. It files this opposition to preserve,
`to the extent necessary, certain arguments it may raise in its preliminary response.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11 (June 4, 2019); IPR2019-00252, Paper 11 (June 4, 2019). Further, Patent
`
`Owner had already filed preliminary responses in the Apple IPRs and the Microsoft
`
`IPR2019-01283
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487
`
`IPRs.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d),
`
`In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under . . .
`chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the
`petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art
`or arguments previously were presented to the Office.
`
`In Unified Patents, Inc. v. Personal Web Tech., the Board denied Unified Patents’
`
`petitions and joinder motions where there were already “multiple, overlapping
`
`petitions, each of which presented grounds of unpatentability based on [the same
`
`primary reference] for many of the same claims.” Unified Patents, Inc. v. Personal
`
`Web Tech., LLC, IPR2014- 00702, Paper 13, p. 6 (PTAB 7/24/2014). The Board
`
`reasoned that the pending outcome of one IPR before the Federal Circuit “may
`
`render moot” the need to reach a final written decision regarding certain claims. Id.
`
`at 8. It further reasoned that:
`
`regardless of the outcome of [the IPR] before the Federal Circuit, each
`of the challenged claims is under review [in another IPR] and, if that
`trial were to proceed to a final written decision, a determination will be
`made as to whether [the claims challenged by Unified] are unpatentable
`as anticipated by, or obvious over, [the reference relied on by Unified].
`
`Id. The same reasoning applies here. The Apple IPRs have already been instituted
`
`on the same claims challenged and the same references relied on by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01283
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Taking into consideration the efficient administration of the Office under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(b), the Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`and deny Petitioner’s petitions and joinder motions.
`
`Date: August 1, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 51,970
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01282
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), we certify that we served an electronic
`
`copy of the foregoing document along with any accompanying exhibits via the
`
`Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) and email to Petitioner’s counsel of
`
`record at the following address:
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Robert Mattson
`
`42850
`
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`
`Alexander Englehart 62031
`
`cpdocketenglehart@oblon.com
`
`First Back up
`Counsel
`
`
`
`Date: August 1, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 51,970
`
`
`
`