`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Table of Contents
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Apple’s definition for “understudy” risks causing undue
`prejudice to Patent Owner.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder is not necessary to prevent undue prejudice to
`Apple.
`
`The General Plastic factors weigh against institution
`and joinder.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`3
`
`4
`
`4
`
`7
`
`7
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This not Apple’s first IPR petition challenging the validity of the exact same
`
`subset of claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917 (“the ’917 patent”). In its prior IPR
`
`filing, the Board denied Apple’s petition as failing to meet the even the minimal
`
`threshold burden for institution for any of the challenged claim (i.e., claims 1‒3 and
`
`9‒10). See Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-00259, Paper 7 (PTAB Jun.
`
`27, 2019) (“Apple ’259 IPR”).
`
`On April 19, 2019, Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‒3 and
`
`9 and 10 of the ʼ917 Patent. See Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`
`IPR2019-00973 (the “Microsoft IPR”), Paper 2 at 1. Apple seeks to challenge the
`
`same subset of claims it failed to challenge in its original IPR (i.e., Apple ’259 IPR).
`
`See Petition (Paper 1) at 1. (“Apple Inc. (‘Petitioner’) respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review (‘IPR’) of claims 1-3 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917 . . . ,
`
`allegedly assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC.”). While Apple acknowledged conferring
`
`with Microsoft regarding its petition and motion before filing, Microsoft is not
`
`named as a real party in interest. See Paper 3 (“Mtn.”) at 7 (“Petitioner Apple has
`
`conferred with counsel for Petitioner Microsoft[.]”).
`
`Relying on at least one reference shared in common with its original petition,
`
`Apple now serially files its present follow-on petition after having benefitted from
`
`the opportunity to review the arguments and evidence Uniloc had previously
`
`presented in its preliminary responses filed in both the Apple ’259 IPR and in the
`
`Microsoft IPR. The joinder motion should be denied for several reasons.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`As the moving party, Apple has the burden of proof to establish that it is
`
`entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). When determining
`
`whether to grant a motion for joinder, the Board considers factors including: (1) time
`
`and cost considerations, including the impact joinder would have on the trial
`
`schedule; and (2) how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See Order
`
`Authorizing Motion for Joinder (Paper 15, 4), Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView, LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00004 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).
`
`Even when a party seeks to join a nearly identical petition, joinder should not
`
`be granted as a matter of right. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); 157
`
`CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Director
`
`is given discretion . . . over whether to allow joinder. This safety valve will allow
`
`the Office to avoid being overwhelmed if there happens to be a deluge of joinder
`
`petitions in a particular case.”).
`
`Here, Apple’s motion should be denied at least because Apple’s definition for
`
`“understudy” expressly attempts to reserve the right to actively participate in the
`
`Microsoft IPR trial that Apple now seeks to join.
`
`A. Apple’s definition for “understudy” risks causing undue prejudice
`to Patent Owner.
`
`Apple’s motion should be denied at least because Apple purports to reserve
`
`rights by its definition for “understudy” which risk causing undue prejudice to Patent
`
`Owner. In another IPR matter involving the same Patent Owner, the Board very
`
`recently considered the same definition for “understudy” and found it permissive of
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`active participation that does not comport with a true “understudy” role. Ericsson
`
`Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00376, Paper 8 (PTAB January 21, 2020)
`
`(“Conduct Order”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01116,
`
`Paper 10 at 3-5 (PTAB January 16, 2020) (referencing the Conduct Order).
`
`There, the Board first addressed language analogous to what is presented in
`
`Apple’s instant motion as follows: “all filings by [the joinder petitioner] in the joined
`
`proceeding be consolidated with [the filings of the original petitioner in the
`
`Microsoft IPR], unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve [the original
`
`petitioner in the Microsoft IPR].” Mtn. 7. The Board observed that such language,
`
`on its face, purports to reserve the right to participate in filings. Conduct Order
`
`2‒3.
`
`The Board questioned whether such participation might impermissibly
`
`include allowing a joinder petitioner to “prepare its own substantive filings and have
`
`that material included within a ‘joint paper’ that also includes separately the
`
`substantive arguments and assertions of Petitioner.” Id. This clearly would
`
`“substantially increase[s] the complexity of the proceeding.” Id.
`
`The Board further questioned whether an “understudy” defined in the same
`
`manner at issue here would be allowed to actively participate in drafting filings,
`
`“with all positions therein binding on both [original petitioner] and [joinder
`
`petitioner], and agreed to by both [original petitioner and joinder petitioner] prior to
`
`filing.” Id. Such active participation exceeds a true “understudy” role. Id.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`The Board further addressed other questionable language analogous to what
`
`is presented in Apple’s instant motion as follows: “[Petitioner] at deposition shall
`
`not receive any direct, cross-examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for
`
`[the petitioner in the Microsoft IPR] alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any
`
`agreement between [Patent Owner] and [the petitioner in the Microsoft IPR].” Mtn.
`
`7 (brackets original); see also Conduct Order 2‒3. The Board correctly recognized
`
`that such language purports to reserve the right for a joinder petitioner to use up the
`
`remainder of any direct, cross-examination or redirect time that an original petitioner
`
`opts to not use, even though the original petitioner remains in the proceedings.
`
`Conduct Order 2‒3. The Board further explained that in a true “understudy” role, a
`
`joined petitioner would not be allowed to “seek to take cross examination testimony
`
`of any witness or have a role in defending the cross-examination of a witness, so
`
`long as Microsoft remains a party in the proceeding.” Id.
`
`The Board summarized a true “understudy role” as follows: “[the petitioner
`
`seeking joinder] will remain completely inactive, but for issues that are solely
`
`directed and pertinent to [the joinder petitioner].” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Applying the same reasoning in the Conduct Order summarized above,
`
`Apple’s Motion for joinder should be denied at least because it offers the same
`
`overbroad definition for “understudy” (verbatim), which is permissive of active
`
`participation that does not comport with a true “understudy” role. Consequently,
`
`Apple’s overbroad definition risks causing delay undue prejudice to Patent Owner
`
`for the same reasons.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`Yet another independent basis for denial is that Apple’s Motion here is silent
`
`as to whether it will seek to file its own appeal briefing, separate and apart from
`
`Microsoft, should Apple eventually seek appellate review. This clearly would
`
`complicate the matter on appear and significantly prejudice Patent Owner, as such a
`
`strategy would effectively allow two distinct appellants to have twice the pages as
`
`Patent Owner in presenting their respective and potentially independent arguments
`
`on appeal. Patent Owner would then have half the pages to respond to both sets of
`
`independent arguments.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder is not necessary to prevent undue prejudice to Apple.
`
`Apple’s motion does not attempt to identify any prejudice to Apple that
`
`joinder will avoid. Apple already was given fair opportunity to present its best
`
`validity challenge against the same claims of the ’917 patent. Apple’s failure does
`
`not entitle it to a second bite at the apple.
`
`C. The General Plastic factors weigh against institution and joinder.
`
`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). In General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki
`
`Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, slip op. at 15–16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19)
`
`(precedential), the Board articulated a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered
`
`in determining whether to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny a petition that
`
`challenges the same patent as a previous petition. Application of the General Plastic
`
`factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`petitioner. Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., Case IPR2019-00062, -00063,
`
`-00084, Paper 11, p. 2 (Apr. 2, 2019) (designated: May 7, 2019). Rather, when
`
`different petitioners challenge the same patent, the Board considers any relationship
`
`between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors. Id.
`
`Here, the first General Plastic factor weighs against institution because Apple
`
`previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent (in Apple
`
`’259 IPR). Apple’s Petition purports to have complete overlap with the challenged
`
`claims of the Microsoft IPR; and, as noted above, Apple acknowledged conferring
`
`with Microsoft, including before filing its IPR. At least these facts collectively weigh
`
`against institution and joinder.
`
`The second factor also weighs against institution and joinder—i.e., whether at
`
`the time of filing the first petition the petitioner knew or should have known of the
`
`prior art asserted in the second petition. Apple acknowledges its second petition
`
`contains overlapping art with its first petition. In addition, Apple does not even
`
`allege the additional art in the instant (second) petition could not have found and
`
`asserted in its first petition with reasonable diligence.
`
`The third factor also weighs against institution—i.e., “Petitioner’s potential
`
`benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, as well as [the Board’s] institution decisions on the first-filed
`
`petitions, prior to filing follow-on petitions.” While Microsoft did not have the
`
`benefit of the Board’s institution decision in Apple ’259 IPR or Uniloc’s preliminary
`
`response when Microsoft filed its petition, Apple is now seeking to take advantage
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`of its knowledge of the institution decision in the Microsoft IPR and Uniloc’s
`
`preliminary response. Apple should not be allowed benefit from the preliminary
`
`responses and the institution decisions, which is precisely what would happen if
`
`Apple takes a lead role in the petition it seeks to join.
`
`Factors four and five weigh against institution and joinder because Apple
`
`provides no adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filing of the
`
`Apple ’259 IPR and Apple’s joinder motion.
`
`Factors six and seven weigh against institution and joinder because, as
`
`explained above, Apple purports offers a definition for “understudy” which purports
`
`to preserve rights unnecessarily complicates the proceeding in a manner that
`
`increases the possibility that Board resolution may be required.
`
`Apple’s attempt to take the second bite at the apple, implicates the same
`
`efficiency concerns underpinning General Plastic and the Valve Corporation
`
`opinions. See Valve Corporation v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-
`
`00064, -00065, -00085 (PTAB May 1, 2019) (Paper 10) (“Valve II”) (precedential);
`
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, -00063, -00084 (PTAB
`
`Apr. 2, 2019) (Paper 11) (“Valve I”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, joinder should be denied.
`
`Date: January 21, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00224
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 51,970
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that an
`
`electronic copy of the foregoing document was filed via the PTAB E2E system and
`
`email to Petitioner’s counsel at the addresses identified in Petitioner’s consent to
`
`electronic service.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`