`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00315
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’917 patent has not and is presently not the subject of any district court
`
`litigation. 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. Ericsson seeks to join the
`
`Microsoft IPR. See generally Paper 3 (“Mtn.”). Ericsson acknowledged conferring
`
`with Microsoft regarding Ericsson’s petition and motion before filing, though
`
`Ericsson does not name Microsoft as a real party in interest. See Mtn. 1 (“Petitioner
`
`in the Microsoft IPR does not oppose Ericsson’s instant motion”).
`
`While Ericsson asserts that, if joined, it will take an “understudy’ role” (Mtn.
`
`1), in another IPR matter involving the same parties,1 the Board recently considered
`
`and rejected Ericsson’s same definition for “understudy” as impermissibly reserving
`
`the right to actively participate, regardless whether the original petitioner
`
`(Microsoft) has been terminated.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`As the moving party, Ericsson 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
`
`
`1 Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00376, Paper 8 (PTAB January 21,
`2020) (“Conduct Order”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00315
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`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, Ericsson’s motion should be denied for the same reasons articulated by
`
`the Board in the Conduct Order (issued just today) involving the same parties. See
`
`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).
`
`Specifically, Ericsson’s motion should be denied at least because Ericsson purports
`
`to reserve impermissible for a joinder petitioner rights by offering the same rejected
`
`definition for “understudy” which risk causing undue prejudice to Patent Owner.
`
`In another IPR matter involving the same parties, the Board very recently
`
`considered Ericsson’s same definition for “understudy” and found it permissive of
`
`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).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00315
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`Specifically, the Board summarized the Board found the same definition for
`
`“understudy” Ericsson repeats here as leaving upon the possibility for the joinder
`
`petitioner to play an active role, regardless whether the original petitioner has been
`
`terminated from the proceeding. Id.
`
`There, the Board first addressed language analogous to what is presented in
`
`Ericsson’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. 8. 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.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00315
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`The Board further addressed other questionable language analogous to what
`
`is presented in Ericsson’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,
`
`Ericsson’s similar motion for joinder here 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, Ericsson’s overbroad definition risks causing delay undue prejudice
`
`to Patent Owner for the same reasons.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00315
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`Yet another independent basis for denial is that Ericsson’s motion here is
`
`silent as to whether it will seek to file its own appeal briefing, separate and apart
`
`from Microsoft, should Ericsson 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.
`
`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
`Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 51,970
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00315
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`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
`
`via 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
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`