`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00032U.S. Patent No. 8,953,641
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22, AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda” or “Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`requests that its Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,953,641 (the
`
`“’641 patent”) (“Petition”) be granted and joined pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) with the Petition for inter partes review filed by
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. and Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (“Toyota IPR
`
`Petitioners”) concerning the ’641 Patent: Toyota Motor Corp. v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC, IPR2022-00974 (“Toyota IPR”).
`
`On May 10, 2022, Toyota IPR Petitioners filed a petition for inter parties
`
`review of the ’641 Patent. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00974, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2022). The Toyota IPR has not yet been
`
`instituted and is, thus, at an early stage. Petitioners concurrently file this motion
`
`with a petition for inter partes review of the ’641 patent. Toyota has represented to
`
`Honda that the Toyota IPR Petitioners will not oppose this Motion for Joinder.
`
`The Toyota IPR is identical to the Honda IPR in all substantive respects, with
`
`the minor difference that it relies on a different expert declarant, but the analysis is
`
`substantively the same. Honda does not seek to alter the grounds upon which Toyota
`
`IPR Petitioners sought review and does not seek any change in the schedule for that
`
`IPR proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In accordance with the Board’s Representative Order identifying matters to
`
`be addressed in a motion for joinder (Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013)), Petitioners submit that:
`
`(1)
`
`joinder is appropriate because it will promote efficient determination of
`
`the validity of the ’641 Patent without prejudice to Toyota IPR
`
`Petitioners or patent owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”);
`
`(2)
`
`Petitioners challenge the same claims of the ’641 patent using the same
`
`grounds as Toyota IPR Petitioners;
`
`(3)
`
`joinder need not affect the schedule in the Toyota IPR—as the instant
`
`petition is substantially identical to the Toyota petition and can be
`
`addressed concurrently—nor
`
`increase
`
`the complexity of
`
`that
`
`proceeding, minimizing costs; and
`
`(4)
`
`Petitioners are willing to agree to consolidated filings with Toyota IPR
`
`Petitioners to eliminate burden and schedule impact.
`
`Accordingly, joinder should be granted. See, e.g., id. at 4 (Apr. 24, 2013)
`
`(noting factors considered in granting joinder requests).
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER IS TIMELY
`
`As discussed below, Petitioner’s motion for joinder is timely pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) because it is being filed
`
`prior to the institution of the Toyota IPR.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board may join any party who has properly filed a petition to a proceeding
`
`following institution of an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). If a petitioner
`
`seeks to be joined as a party to another inter partes review of the same patent, it is
`
`required to file a request “no later than one month after the institution date of any
`
`inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Here, Petitioners have moved for joinder “no later than one month after the
`
`institution date” of inter partes review in the Toyota IPR, which has not yet been
`
`instituted. Therefore, Petitioner’s request to be joined as a party to the Toyota IPR
`
`is timely.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONERS SHOULD BE JOINED AS PARTIES TO THE
`TOYOTA IPR
`
`The Board has provided that a motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the
`
`reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the
`
`trial schedule of the existing proceeding; and (4) address specifically how briefing
`
`and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4.
`
`Analysis of these factors here warrants the grant of the requested joinder.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder of Petitioners Will Promote an Efficient Determination of
`the Validity of the ’641 Patent Without Prejudice to Any Party
`
`If Petitioners were joined as parties, the validity of the grounds raised in
`
`Toyota’s IPR and Petitioner’s concurrently filed Petition could be determined in a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`single proceeding. Petitioner’s Petition challenges the validity of the same claims
`
`of the ’641 Patent on the same grounds as Toyota’s Petition. Petitioners also rely on
`
`substantially the same supporting evidence in their Petition as in Toyota’s Petition.
`
`See Toyota IPR, Paper 1. A consolidated proceeding with Toyota IPR Petitioners
`
`will therefore be more efficient and less wasteful, as only a single trial on these
`
`common grounds would be required. See, e.g., Oracle Am., Inc. v. Realtime Data
`
`LLC, IPR2016-01672, Paper 13, at *7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017).
`
`Joining Petitioners as parties to the Toyota IPR would also not cause any
`
`prejudice to Toyota IPR Petitioners or IV. IV, as the patent owner, must respond to
`
`the common invalidity grounds identified in Toyota’s Petition regardless of joinder.
`
`In fact, a single trial would reduce the burden on IV by limiting duplication of effort
`
`as it would have to address these common invalidity grounds once. As Honda’s
`
`Petition raises exactly the same grounds as Toyota’s Petition, Petitioners would still
`
`be able to pursue the same invalidity arguments if joinder were not granted. For IV
`
`and Toyota IPR Petitioners, Honda’s Petition has been filed sufficiently early so that
`
`joinder would affect neither the schedule of the inter partes review nor the costs
`
`associated with a full trial. See Oracle Am., Paper 13 at 7.
`
`Petitioner agrees not to be permitted any arguments separate from those
`
`advanced by Petitioner and Toyota in the consolidated filings. These limitations
`
`avoid lengthy and duplicative briefing.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`B. No New Grounds of Unpatentability Are Asserted
`
`The Petitioner’s Petition does not present any new grounds of unpatentability.
`
`As mentioned above, the Petitioner’s Petition presents only the asserted grounds
`
`from the Toyota IPR. Although, the Petitioner’s Petition refers to a different expert
`
`declarant, the prior art analysis is substantially similar and will not present any new
`
`grounds of unpatentability.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Would Not Affect the Schedule in the Toyota IPR
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. In this case, joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to issue a
`
`final written decision within the one-year timeframe because Petitioner’s Petition is
`
`substantively identical to that in the Toyota IPR and no new expert testimony or
`
`evidence is presented.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioners Will Agree to Consolidated Filings to Eliminate Burden
`and Schedule Impact
`
`To further prevent joinder from imposing any burden on Toyota IPR
`
`Petitioners or IV and to further ensure that there are no changes in the potential trial
`
`schedule, Petitioners will agree to submit consolidated filings for all substantive
`
`papers in the respective proceedings with Toyota IPR Petitioners and to incorporate
`
`its filings with those of Toyota IPR Petitioners in a consolidated filing, subject to the
`
`ordinary rules for one party on page limits. See, e.g., Torrent Pharms. Ltd. v. UCB
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Pharma GMBH, IPR 2016-01636, Paper 10, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016) (granting
`
`joinder where petitioner agreed to consolidated filings).
`
`By consolidating filings with Toyota IPR Petitioners, IV will only need to
`
`respond to one principal set of papers. No further time to address additional
`
`arguments would be required by either Toyota IPR Petitioners or IV, and the
`
`consolidated trial could thus proceed at the same pace as if Petitioners were not
`
`joined. See id.; Am. Pharms. Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GMBH, IPR2016-01665, Paper
`
`8, at *6 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board grant
`
`its concurrently filed Petition for inter partes review of the ’641 patent and
`
`consolidate the grounds of invalidity therein raised in the Toyota IPR.
`
`The undersigned attorney may be reached by telephone at (415) 439-1416.
`
`Although Petitioner believes that no fee is required for this Motion, the
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
`
`required for this Motion to Deposit Account No. 506092.
`
`Dated: October 11, 2022
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Reza Dokhanchy/
`Reza Dokhanchy (Reg. No. 62,795)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California St.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com
`
`Michael W. De Vries, (to seek pro
`hac vice admission)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-680-8400
`Facsimile: 213-680-8500
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`
`Adam R. Alper, (to seek pro hac vice
`admission)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`adam.alper@kirkland.com
`
`Akshay S. Deoras, (to seek pro hac
`vice admission)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was
`
`served on October 11, 2022 via overnight delivery directed to the correspondence
`
`address of record for the patent owner at the following address:
`
`McAndrews Held &Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
` courtesy copy was also served by electronic mail on counsel of record for
`
` A
`
`the Petitioner and Patent Owner in IPR2022-00974 and the attorneys below for the
`
`following related District Court matter:
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2022-00974
`
`Petitioner
`David C. Reese
`James R. Barney
`Joshua Goldberg
`Grace K. Mills
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`david.reese@finnegan.com
`james.barney@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`gracie.mills@finnegan.com
`
`Patent Owner
`Ryan O’Donnell
`Jeffrey G. Glabicki
`Robert D. Leonard
`Dawn C. Kerner
`Michael F. Snyder
`Volpe Koenig
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30 South 17th Street, 18th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`RODonnell@vklaw.com
`JGlabicki@vklaw.com
`RLeonard@vklaw.com
`DKerner@vklaw.com
`Msnyder@vklaw.com
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., LTD. et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00761 (N.D. Tex.)
`
`Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`jwaldrop@kasowitz.com
`
`Bruce W. Steckler
`Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC
`12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
`Dallas, Texas 75230
`bruce@swclaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Reza Dokhanchy/
`Reza Dokhanchy (Reg. No. 62,795)
`
`
`
`10
`
`
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
