Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: October 12, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHEWY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`Granting Motion for Joinder- Paper 3
`35 U.S.C. § 315, 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: October 12, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHEWY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`Granting Motion for Joinder- Paper 3
`35 U.S.C. § 315, 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Chewy, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Chewy”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20
`(‘the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,076,443 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’443
`patent”). Petitioner concurrently filed a Motion for Joinder of this
`proceeding with IPR2020-01655 (the “1655 IPR” or “the Zillow IPR”).
`Paper 3 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). International Business Machines Corporation
`(“Patent Owner” or “IBM”) filed an Opposition to the Motion.1 Paper 7
`(“Opposition” or “Opp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Opposition. Paper
`8 (“Reply”).
`We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to
`determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial
`on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition
`shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons
`discussed below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims
`of the ’443 patent on all grounds stated in the Petition. We also grant the
`Motion.
`A. Related Matters
`The ’443 patent is currently at issue in Chewy, Inc. v. International
`Business Machines Corp., No. 1:21-cv-01319 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “New York
`litigation”) and International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group,
`
`
`1 Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00851-TSZ (W.D. Wash.) (the “Washington litigation”).
`Pet. 1, Paper 5, 1. The ’443 patent is at issue in IPR2020-01655. Paper 5, 1.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner and Patent Owner state that the named entities are the only
`real parties in interest. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`C. The ’443 Patent
`The ’443 patent “relates to e-commerce solutions that include target
`advertising.” Ex. 1001, 1:10–13. The patent explains that advertising to
`Internet users has typically involved the use of “banner ads,” which have
`drawbacks:
`First, advertisements are made available to the users whether or
`not these ads have been specifically solicited. Second, banner
`ads rely on user profiling, which is burdensome to employ.
`Third, web site owners who are not technically savvy, or without
`available resources, can not easily acquire user profiling
`information.
`Id. at 1:18–28. Additionally, shortcomings in the use of user profiles for
`targeted advertising include that collecting and building profiles is
`“cumbersome work,” that the information changes, and that it is “difficult to
`identify a specific user, i.e., a user interested in purchasing automobiles, and
`associate the correct advertisement profile to the user.” Id. at 1:46–56. The
`patent provides a method for use with search engine services that does not
`rely on user profiling, and is “uniquely different from the e-commerce
`method of user profiling.” Id. at 1:65–2:4; 4:54–56.
`The patent relies on the idea that “if a user is interested in a specific
`piece of information, he or she may be interested in related or similar
`advertisements,” presented in banner advertisements, based on the results of
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`searches. Id. at 5:11–19. “[F]or each search result item 30, the method
`requires a match search 40 of related products.” Id. at 5:33–35.
`The method of the ’443 patent includes the use of a “product database
`110,” which “provides storage for a list of potential product advertisements.”
`Id. at 6:13–14. “The type of information pertaining to these products may be
`in the form of images, such as hyperlinks or full HTML pages, and the like.
`It is not necessary to dictate the details of this database, provided accessible
`images can be acquired.” Id. at 6:14–18. According to the ’443 patent:
`product matching manager 140 takes the search engine results set
`and attempts to match at least one product to each of the search
`result
`items. This
`is accomplished,
`in part,
`through
`communication with the product database 110. For example, if
`the search had yielded twenty five (25) in the results set, the
`product matching manager 140 would, for each of those twenty
`five search result items, try to match at least one of the products
`found in the product database 110 to the individual search result
`item.
`Id. at 6:35–43. The patent describes “using the URL of the search result
`item as a unique key identifier.” Id. at 6:47–49.
`D. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20 would have been
`unpatentable on the following grounds (Pet. 3–4)2:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Linden3
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`102
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Because the
`’443 patent was filed before the effective date of the relevant amendment,
`the pre-AIA version of § 102 applies.
`3 US 6,266,649 B1, issued July 24, 2001 (Ex. 1003, “Linden”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`102
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Bull4
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20
`
`E. The Challenged Claims
`Claims 1 and 15 are independent and are reproduced below:
`1. A method of
`targeting at
`least one associated
`advertisement from an Internet search having access to an
`information repository by a user, comprising:
`identifying at least one search result item from a search result
`of said Internet search by said user;
`searching for said at least one associated advertisement
`within said repository using said at least one search result
`item;
`identifying said at least one associated advertisement from
`said repository having at least one word that matches said
`at least one search result item; and
`correlating said at least one associated advertisement with
`said at least one search result item.
`
`
`
`result
`
`items
`
`to said
`
`related
`
`15. A method for providing related advertisements for search
`result items from a search of an information repository,
`comprising:
`matching said search
`advertisements;
`designating each of said search result items that have said
`related advertisements matched therewith;
`providing a corresponding graphical user interface for each
`of said search result items so designated for subsequent
`user selection;
`searching and retrieving said related advertisement for one of
`said search result items when said corresponding
`graphical user interface is selected by a user; and
`formatting and displaying said related advertisements upon
`selection.
`Ex. 1001, 8:5–17, 8:61–9:8.
`
`4 US 5,995,943, issued Nov. 30, 1999 (Ex. 1004, “Bull”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Institution of Inter Partes Review
`We instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the
`1655 IPR. Zillow Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`IPR2020-01655, Paper 8, 2 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2021). Petitioner here
`challenges the same claims and asserts the same grounds of unpatentability
`as those on which we instituted the 1655 IPR. Mot. 1 (Petition is “narrowly
`tailored to the same claims, prior art, and grounds for unpatentability that are
`the subject of” the 1655 IPR). Petitioner also relies on the same declarant
`testimony as did the petitioner in the 1655 IPR. Id. at 4. Because the
`grounds of unpatentability in the Petition are identical to those in the 1655
`IPR, and for the same reasons stated in our Decision to Institute in the 1655
`IPR, we institute inter partes review in this proceeding on all grounds
`presented in the Petition.
`B. Motion for Joinder
`The statutory provision governing the joinder of a party to a pending
`inter partes review is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) which provides:
`(c) JOINDER. If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response,
`determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`section 314.
`To join Petitioner to the 1655 IPR, we must first determine whether the
`Petition warrants institution under § 314. See Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City
`Innovations, LLC, 973 F. 3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As discussed
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`above, we have so determined. We now turn to whether or not we should
`exercise our discretion to join Petitioner as a party to the 1655 IPR.
`
`Our rules require that the Motion be filed “no later than one month
`after the institution date of” the 1655 IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (b). We
`instituted review in the 1655 IPR on March 15, 2021. See Zillow Group,
`IPR2021-01655, Paper 9. The Motion was timely filed on April 15, 2021.
`Paper 3.
`
`Petitioner analyzes the factors set forth in Kycocera Corp. v. Softview,
`LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, 4 (PTAB April 24, 2013) and contends the
`factors weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to join Petitioner as a
`party to the 1655 IPR. Mot. 3. Under Kyocera, we consider the reasons
`why joinder may be appropriate, whether the Petition presents any new
`grounds of patentability, the impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial
`schedule in the 1655 IPR, and how briefing and discovery may be
`simplified. Id.
`
`Petitioner contends that joinder is appropriate because the “Petition is
`substantively identical to the Zillow Petition, containing only minor
`differences related to the formalities of a different party filing the petition”
`and “there are no changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments
`presented in the Zillow Petition.” Mot. 5; see also id. at 7 (The Petition
`“does not present any new grounds or arguments of unpatentability.”).
`Petitioner notes that because the “Petition relies on the same expert and a
`substantively identical declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the
`proposed joint proceeding.” Id. at 8. Petitioner further contends that joinder
`“will not unduly burden or negatively affect the Zillow IPR trial schedule,”
`we “will receive consolidated filings instead of redundant submissions in
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`separate IPR’s, and Patent Owner will not be burdened with presenting any
`additional responses or arguments.” Id. at 6. Petitioner represents that it
`“explicitly consents to the existing trial schedule and agrees to take an
`‘understudy’ role” in the Zillow IPR . . . so long as Zillow remains an active
`party in the joined proceeding.” Id. at 9; see also id. at 10–11 (Petitioner
`stipulating to certain procedures if the Motion is granted.).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing but argues we
`“should consider factors for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`when evaluating whether to institute and join this proceeding with the Zillow
`IPR.” Opp. 4 (citing Consolidate Trial Practice Guide, 77 (Nov. 2019)).
`According to Patent Owner “[t]he mere fact that Chewy seeks to join an
`already-instituted IPR on the same invalidity grounds ‘does not obligate [the
`Board] to institute this proceeding without first considering whether to
`exercise discretion under § 314(a).” Id. (citing Apple v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00854, Paper 9, 4–5 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2020) (precedential)). In
`particular, Patent Owner contends that we should consider “the state of
`parallel district court litigation in which the same patent and claims are at
`issue.” Id. (citing Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 5–6
`(PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)).
`The precedential order in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. identifies factors to
`consider when a patent owner raises an argument for discretionary denial
`due to the advanced state of a parallel proceeding:
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2.
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`3.
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`4.
`parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`6.
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5‒6. “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness,
`and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of
`an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. There is some
`overlap among these factors and some facts may be relevant to more than
`one factor. Id. In evaluating the factors, the Board takes a holistic view of
`whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`instituting review. Id.
`i.
`Analysis
`We reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and evidence in light of the
`factors stated in Kyocera. We find that the evidence supports joining
`Petitioner as a party to the 1655 IPR. We now analyze the Fintiv factors to
`determine whether those factors, considered holistically, support exercising
`our discretion to deny institution/joinder.
`a. Whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted
`Patent Owner contends that this factor weighs in favor of denial of
`institution because Petitioner filed a stay request in the New York litigation
`and argues that the District Court is unlikely to grant a stay. Opp. 5–6.
`Petitioner counters that the Washington litigation concerning the ’443 patent
`is stayed pending resolution of the 1655 IPR. Reply 2.
`After the briefing in this case was complete, the District Court denied
`Petitioner’s motion to stay the New York litigation. Ex. 3001, 35.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny
`institution.
`
`b. The proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision
`Patent Owner contends that this factor favors denial of institution
`because the District Court ordered that the New York litigation “be ready for
`trial on November 27, 2021.” Opp. 6 (citing Ex. 2005, 1). According to
`Patent Owner, that date “is over three and a half months earlier than the
`March 15, 2022 due date for a final written decision in the” 1655 IPR. Id.
`(citing Ex. 2002).
`Petitioner contends that “the District Court agreed to extend the ‘ready
`for trial’ date to January 11, 2022.” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1014). Petitioner
`further contends that “the District Court’s rules explain that the ‘ready for
`trial’ date is not the actual trial date; instead, it is simply the date by ‘which
`the parties will not be heard to complain that they are not ready for trial.’”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1015, 5).
`The current record reflects that the District Court in the New York
`litigation will “set a firm trial date” on December 30, 2021. Ex. 1014, 3.
`Because the District Court has not set a firm trial date, we find this factor
`weighs in favor of not exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`c. Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties
`Patent Owner contends this factor favors denial of institution because
`the New York litigation “will be far along before the Board’s institution
`decision is due in this case, and will likely be complete before the final
`written decision is expected” in the 1655 IPR. Opp. 7. In support of this
`contention, Patent Owner directs us to a schedule indicating that the District
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`Court will conduct “a Markman hearing as early as July 23, 2021, exchange
`expert reports by August 16, 2021, complete fact and expert discovery by
`September 29, 2021, and be ready for trial by November 27, 2021.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 2005).
`Petitioner contends “the progress of the litigation at the time of the
`institution decision is speculative at best in light of Petitioner’s pending
`motion to dismiss or stay IBM’s infringement counterclaim.” Reply 3–4.
`Petitioner further contends “if the motion is denied, the Board will issue its
`institution decision before the deadlines to serve rebuttal expert reports . . .
`complete depositions . . . complete discovery . . . and file dispositive
`motions.” Id. at 4.
`Petitioner further contends that under this factor, “the Board considers
`the ‘facts relevant to timing,’ including whether ‘the evidence shows that the
`petitioner filed the petition expeditiously, such as promptly after becoming
`aware of the claims being asserted.’” Id. at 3 (citing Apple v. Fintiv, Paper
`11 at 11–12). In that regard, Petitioner contends it filed the Petition and
`Motion for Joinder on April 15, 2021 which is “over one month before
`Patent Owner served its infringement contentions on May 21 2021.” Id.
`We agree with Petitioner that there is some uncertainty in the District
`Court schedule at this point. From the record evidence, it appears that the
`District Court has twice revised the earliest date on which it will hold a
`Markman hearing. See Ex. 1014, 2; Ex. 2005, 2. Nonetheless, the record
`evidence also reveals that a not insignificant amount of work has been
`invested by the parties in preparing for the Markman hearing as of the date
`of this decision. Ex. 1014 ¶¶ D.2.2–D.2.3. It also appears that a not
`insignificant amount of work remains to be done. Id. ¶¶ D.3–D.6, E.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`Given Petitioner’s timely filing of the Petition and Motion and the
`amount of work left to be done in the New York litigation post institution,
`we find that this factor is neutral in our analysis.
`d. Overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding
`Patent Owner contends that this factor favors denial of institution
`because “all claims challenged in Chewy’s Petition are also at issue in the
`Chewy Litigation.” Opp. 8 (citing Ex. 2004, 25 n.8).
`Petitioner counters “if this proceeding is instituted and its Motion is
`granted, then it will not pursue the same grounds in the District Court.”
`Reply 4. Petitioner contends that based on this stipulation, “this factor
`‘weighs marginally in favor’ of institution.” Id. (citing Sand Revolution II,
`LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393,
`Paper 24, 11–12 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative).
`Based on Petitioner’s representation that it will not pursue the same
`grounds in the New York litigation, this factor weighs marginally in favor of
`not exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`e. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party
`Patent Owner contends that this factor favors denial of institution
`because Chewy is the Petitioner here and a party to the parallel litigation.
`Opp. 9 (citing Ex. 2006, 1).
`Petitioner contends that this factor “could weigh either in favor of, or
`against, exercising discretion to deny institution, depending on which
`tribunal was likely to address the challenged patent first.” Reply 4 (citing
`Apple v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00305, Paper 14, 20-21 (PTAB June 3, 2021).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`Although the reasoning in the Apple v. Koss decision is not binding on
`us, it is, nonetheless, informative on this point. We note that we will hold
`the oral hearing in the 1655 IPR on December 15, 2021 which is two weeks
`prior to the date that the District Court in the New York litigation will set a
`firm trial date. IPR2020-01655, Paper 9, 12. These facts indicate it is
`highly likely that we will address the patentability of the challenged claims
`of the ’443 patent prior to the District Court. Consequently, we treat this
`factor as weighing in favor of not exercising our discretion to deny
`institution.
`
`f. Other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`Patent Owner contends that this factor favors denial of institution.
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s decision to seek joinder to the 1655
`IPR rather than filing its own stand-alone Petition “appears to be a strategic
`attempt to participate in an instituted IPR without being subject to the full
`petitioner estoppel that typically attaches with a final written decision.”
`Opp. 10 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)). Patent Owner contends that “the
`Federal Circuit has suggested that petitioners joined to an IPR are estopped
`only from later raising the grounds that were actually advanced in the IPR,
`rather than the broader statutory estoppel.” Id. (citing Network-1 Techs.,
`Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 981 F. 3d 1015, 1027–28 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
`Patent Owner notes that the petitioner in Newtork-1, unlike Petitioner here,
`was time-barred at the time of joinder and “thus it is unclear whether the
`same narrower estoppel would apply to Chewy.” Id. Patent Owner further
`contends that Petitioner faces no prejudice if we deny institution of the
`Petition and the Motion, because it will not be time barred from filing its
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`own Petition until April 19, 2022 “which is also one month after the due
`date for a final written decision” in the 1655 IPR. Id. at 12.
`Petitioner counters that because it will only play an understudy role in
`the 1655 IPR, this factor weighs strongly against denying institution because
`the 1655 IPR will still go forward and denial “would not avoid potential
`duplicative efforts.” Reply 4–5 (citing Garmin Int’l v. Phillips North
`America LLC, IPR2020-00910, Paper 8, 26 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2020)).
`Petitioner contends that it sought joinder for efficiency reasons alone and
`Patent Owner’s estoppel allegations are “unsupported and simply not true.”
`Id. at 5. Petitioner also contends that it would suffer prejudice if it were
`required to refile the Petition because “a final written decision would not
`issue until April 2023––15 months after the ‘ready for trial date’ entered by
`the District Court” which, according to Petitioner “would lead to duplicative
`proceedings and prejudice to Petitioner.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s argument concerning the scope of estoppel is, as
`Patent Owner concedes, unsupported by Network-1, and thus, speculative
`because Petitioner is not time barred. We agree with our colleagues in
`Garmin that because the 1655 IPR is still ongoing, denial of institution and
`joinder will not avoid potential duplicative efforts by the Board. See
`Garmin, Paper 8 at 26. Our colleagues in Garmin found that this factor
`weighed strongly against denying institution because of this and the fact that
`the merits of the petition in that case were strong. In this case, the merits of
`the Petition with respect to challenged claim 1 are strong and more than
`sufficient for institution.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that this factor weighs
`against exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`g. Weighing Factors Holistically
`Because our analysis of the Fintiv factors is fact driven, no single
`factor is determinative of whether we exercise our discretion. After
`weighing all factors holistically, we determine not to exercise our discretion
`to deny institution or the motion for joinder because the District Court has
`not yet set a trial date for the New York litigation, the oral hearing in the
`1655 IPR will be held in approximately two months, and our final written
`decision in the 1655 IPR will be issued no later than March 15, 2022. Due
`to the speculative nature of Patent Owner’s estoppel argument, we are not
`persuaded that the integrity of the system would be negatively impacted by
`our decision to institute and grant the Motion.
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, we institute inter partes review of
`the challenged claims of the ’443 patent based on the grounds set forth in the
`Petition. We also grant the Motion and join Petitioner to IPR2020-01655 in
`the understudy role described by Petitioner in the Motion so long as the
`petitioner in IPR2020-01655 continues to participate in that proceeding.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter
`partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds presented in the
`Petition is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this decision;
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.122, Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) is granted, and
`Petitioner is joined as a petitioner in IPR2020-01655, subject to the
`following limitations on Petitioner’s participation in that proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted grounds of unpatentability on
`which the Board instituted inter partes review in IPR2020-01655 are
`unchanged and remain the only instituted grounds;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order, Paper 9 in
`IPR2020-01655, and any modifications thereto, shall govern the schedule of
`the proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings by Petitioner are to be
`made in IPR2020-01655;
`FURTHER ORDERED that all filings by Petitioner in IPR2020-
`01655 be consolidated with the filings of the petitioner in IPR2020-01655;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall be bound by any past or
`future agreement between Patent Owner and the petitioner in IPR2020-
`01655 concerning discovery and/or depositions;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall not seek any discovery
`from Patent Owner separate from the petitioner in IPR2020-01655;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner, at deposition, shall not receive
`any direct, cross examination, or redirect time beyond that permitted for the
`petitioner in IPR2020-01655 alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any
`agreement between Patent Owner and the petitioner in IPR2020-01655;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall not separately request nor
`receive any time at the oral hearing in this matter;
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2020-01655, for
`all further submissions, shall be modified to add Chewy, Inc. as a named
`Petitioner, and to indicate by footnote the joinder of Petitioner to that
`proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may seek relief from the
`conditions on its participation in IPR2020-01655 set forth in this Order only
`if the petitioner in IPR2020-01655 ceases to participate as a party in
`IPR2020-01655;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record in IPR2020-01655.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00757
`Patent 7,076,443 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joshua Raskin
`Heath Briggs
`Vimal Kapadia
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`raskinj@gtlaw.com
`briggsh@gtlaw.com
`kapadiav@gtlaw.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Theodoros Konstantakopolous
`DESMARAIS LLP
`yha@desmaraisllp.com
`tkonstantakopolous@desmaraisllp.com
`
`
`
`18
`
`
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
