Microsoft Corporationv.Biscotti Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2015

12561165 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
571-272-7822 Entered: October 19, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.

BISCOTTI INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, NEIL T. POWELL, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
And Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122

IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
to institute an inter partes review of claims 13–16, 33, 34, 46, and 82–86 of
U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’182 patent”). On the same
day, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder, requesting joinder of this
proceeding with a related and instituted proceeding, Microsoft Corp. v.
Biscotti Inc., Case IPR2014-01457 (“’1457 IPR”). Paper 3 (“Joinder
Motion”). Petitioner filed its Joinder Motion within one month after
institution of a trial in the ’1457 IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.122(b).
Patent Owner Biscotti Inc. filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition.
Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed an Opposition to
Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 8 (“Opp. To Joinder”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
inter partes review may be authorized only if “the information presented in
the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
one of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
For the reasons below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
that joinder is warranted in this instance. We also deny the Petition and do
not institute inter partes review as to claims 13–16, 33, 34, 46, and 82–86 of
the ’182 patent.
A. Related Proceedings
Patent Owner has asserted the ’182 patent against Petitioner in
Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
Pet. 5; Paper 6, 1. Additionally, in the ’1457 IPR, Petitioner filed its Petition
(“’1457 Petition”) on September 6, 2014 requesting inter partes review of
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

3

claims 6, 13–16, 24–29, 31–37, 41, 46, and 82–86. Microsoft Corp. v.
Biscotti Inc., Case IPR2014-01457, Paper 1 (Sept. 6, 2014). On March 19,
2015, in the ’1457 IPR, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 6, 24–
26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 37, and 41, and declined to institute an inter partes review
of claims 13–16, 27, 32–35, 46, and 82–86. Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc.,
Case IPR2014-01457, slip op. 30–31 (PTAB Mar. 19, 2015) (Paper 9)
(“’1457 Institution Decision”). Subsequently, Petitioner filed the present
Petition on April 17, 2015, challenging claims 13–16, 33, 34, 46, and 82–86.
The ’182 patent also is involved in instituted inter partes reviews in
Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc., Case IPR2014-01458, and Microsoft Corp.
v. Biscotti Inc., Case IPR2014-01459. Additionally, the ’182 patent is the
subject of petitions filed by Petitioner in Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc.,
Case IPR2015-01053, and Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc., Case IPR2015-
01054. Pet. 5.
B. The ’182 Patent
The ’182 patent discloses “tools and techniques for providing video
calling solutions.” Ex. 1001, Abst. The ’182 patent shows one video
communication system 100 in Figure 1A, reproduced below.
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

4

Figure 1A shows various components of video communication system 100,
including video communication devices 105a and 105b, Internet 110, video
sources 115a and 115b, display devices 120a and 120b, and set-top
boxes 125a and 125b. Id. at col. 5, l. 40–col. 6, l. 13. The ’182 patent
discloses that video communication device 105a captures video stream 155
from video source 115a, and that video communication device 105b captures
video stream 160 from video source 115b. Id. at col. 5, ll. 49–56. Each
video communication device 105a and 105b can output to the connected
display device 120a or 120b a video stream, which may have various
compositions. Id. at col. 5, ll. 56–62.
As shown in Figure 1A, video communication device 105a may be
connected between set-top box 125a and display device 120a. Id. at col. 5,
ll. 62–65. The ’182 patent indicates that this arrangement allows video
communication device 105a to pass audiovisual stream 150a from set-top
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

5

box 125a through to display device 120a. See id. at col. 5, l. 62–col. 6, l. 1.
The ’182 patent discloses that video communication device 105a
(additionally or alternatively) may receive audio video stream 160 from
video communication device 105b, and that video communication
device 105a may forward video stream 160 to display device 120a. Id. at
col. 6, ll. 1–6. This may happen as part of a video call. Id. at col. 6, ll. 1–5.
The ’182 patent discloses that video communication device 105a, in some
cases, may cause simultaneously the display of audiovisual stream 150a
from set-top box 125a and stream 160 from video communication
device 105b. Id. at col. 6, ll. 13–18. This allows a user to watch television
while participating in a video call. Id. at col. 6, ll. 18–20.
Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
6. A video communication system, comprising:
a first video communication device comprising:
a video input interface to receive video input from a set-
top box;
an audio input interface to receive audio input from the
set-top box;
a video output interface to provide video output to a
video display device;
an audio output interface to provide audio output to an
audio receiver;
a video capture device to capture video;
an audio capture device to capture audio;
a network interface;
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

6

at least one processor; and
a storage medium in communication with the at least one
processor, the storage medium having encoded
thereon a set of instructions executable by the at least
one processor to control operation of the first video
communication device, the set of instructions
comprising:
instructions for controlling the video capture device to
capture a captured video stream;
instructions for controlling the audio capture device to
capture a captured audio stream;
instructions for encoding the captured video stream
and the captured audio stream to produce a series
of data packets; and
instructions for transmitting the series of data packets
on the network interface for reception by a second
video communication device.
Ex. 1001, col. 32, l. 62–col. 33, l. 25.

II. DECISION ON THE MOTION FOR JOINDER
A. Background
The statutory provision governing joinder of inter partes review
proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads as follows:
(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.
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

7

Section 315(b) of the statute generally bars institution of inter partes
review when the petition is filed more than one year after the petitioner (or
petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is served with a complaint alleging
infringement of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). That
one-year time bar, however, does not apply to a request for joinder.
35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (final sentence); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). This is an
important consideration here because Petitioner was served with a complaint
asserting infringement of the ’182 patent more than one year before filing
the Petition in this proceeding. See Joinder Motion 2, 4. As noted above,
the ’182 patent is involved in a district court proceeding in the U.S. District
Court of the Eastern District of Texas captioned Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft
Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“District Court
Proceeding”). Joinder Motion 2; Pet. 5. Petitioner represents that the
complaint in the District Court Proceeding was served on Petitioner on
November 27, 2013. Joinder Motion 2. As noted above, the present Petition
was filed on April 17, 2015. Thus, absent joinder of this proceeding to the
’1457 IPR, institution based on the current Petition is barred under 35 U.S.C.
§ 315(b).
Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant
joinder is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As
indicated in the legislative history, the Board will determine whether to grant
joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particular facts of
each case. See 157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of
Sen. Kyl) (when determining whether and when to allow joinder, the Office
may consider factors including the breadth or unusualness of the claim
scope, claim construction issues, and consent of the patent owner). When
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

8

exercising that discretion, the Board is mindful that patent trial regulations,
including the rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing
entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. 42.20(c).
B. Analysis
Petitioner notes that we declined to institute inter partes review in the
’1457 IPR with respect to Petitioner’s challenge of claims 13–16, 33, 34, 46,
and 82–86 as obvious over Kenoyer
1
and the HDMI Specification
2
. Pet. 1;
see ’1457 Institution Decision 25–28, 31. As Petitioner acknowledges, we
denied Petitioner’s challenge because the ’1457 Petition presented
inadequate evidence and explanation in support of Petitioner’s contentions
about the public availability of the HDMI Specification prior to the effective
filing date of the ’182 patent. ’1457 Petition 12–13; ’1457 Institution
Decision 25–28.
In the present Petition, Petitioner explains that:
Petitioner presents . . . the grounds it presented in the -01457
proceeding regarding claims 13-16, 33, 34, 46, and 82-86;
namely, that claims 13-16, 33, 34, 46, and 82-86 would have
been considered obvious based on Kenoyer in view of the
HDMI Specification version 1.3a. In this petition, however,
Petitioner also presents additional evidence establishing more
than a reasonable likelihood that [the HDMI Specification] is
prior art to the ’182 patent claims. Specifically, Petitioner
presents Exhibit 1044, the Declaration of Steve Venuti, the now
retired president of HDMI Licensing LLC, an organization that
developed and promoted the HDMI Specification.

1
U.S. Patent No. 7,907,164 B2 (Exhibit 1006).
2
Hitachi, Ltd. et al., High-Definition Multimedia Interface, Specification
Version 1.3a (2006) (Exhibit 1007).
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

9

Pet. 2.
Petitioner asserts that it could not have provided this declaration of Mr.
Venuti with the ’1457 petition “due to the policies of the sponsor of [the
HDMI Specification] (i.e., HDMI Licensing, LLC).” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1044
¶ 12).
In support of its argument that we should join the present proceeding
to the ’1457 IPR, Petitioner cites 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), which provides that
our rules must be “construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
resolution of every proceeding.” Joinder Motion 14. Petitioner asserts that
“[j]oining the -01052 and -01457 proceedings will ‘ensure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive resolution’ of closely related claims of the ‘182 Patent in a
single proceeding, with no discernible prejudice to [Patent Owner].” Id.
Petitioner argues that joining the instant proceeding to the ’1457 IPR would
further a principal objective of the America Invents Act by simplifying the
copending district court proceeding between the parties. Id. at 7. Petitioner
argues that the ’1457 Institution Decision did not address the merits of the
challenge based on the HDMI Specification, and that there is a strong public
interest in the Board addressing challenges to closely related claims of the
’182 patent in one proceeding. Pet. 3 (citing Cisco, Inc. v. Crossroads Sys.,
Inc., Case IPR2014-01544, slip op. 13–14 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2015) (Paper 9)
(declining Patent Owner’s invitation to deny institution under 35 U.S.C.
§ 325(d) where prosecution and reexaminations involved similar art, but that
art was not addressed substantively during prosecution and reexaminations);
Kaiser Aluminum v. Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC, Case
IPR2014-01002, slip op. 14–15 (PTAB Dec. 29, 2014) (Paper 11) (“[t]he
permissive language of § 325(d) [] does not prohibit instituting inter partes
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

10

review based on prior art previously presented to the Office.”)); Joinder
Motion 7–8.
Petitioner contends that joinder would not complicate unduly the
’1457 IPR. Joinder Motion 8–12. Petitioner asserts that this case involves
the same parties, patent, cited references, and much of the same evidence as
the ’1457 IPR. Id. at 8. Petitioner contends that “the only substantive
difference between the record in IPR2014-01457 and IPR2015-01052 is that
the latter proffers additional evidence that the HDMI Specification
(Ex. 1007) is prior art.” Id.
Petitioner argues that joinder should not delay final determination in
the ’1457 IPR. Id. at 11–12. Petitioner contends that the claim challenge
advanced presents limited, straightforward issues. Id. at 11. Petitioner notes
that, when it filed the Joinder Motion on April 17, 2015, there remained
nearly two months before Due Date 1 of the ’1457 IPR, as well as over six
months before Due Dates 6 and 7 of the ’1457 IPR. Id. at 11–12.
Additionally, the Joinder Motion notes that Petitioner was willing to extend
Due Date 1 of the ’1457 IPR. Id. at 11.
Petitioner contends that instituting and joining would not prejudice
Patent Owner. Id. at 10–12, 14–15. In support of this argument, Petitioner
notes that Patent Owner “has, since the petition in the -01457 proceeding,
been aware of the basis of Petitioner’s challenge (i.e., Kenoyer in view of
the HDMI Specification v1.3a).” Id. at 10. Petitioner also asserts that its
willingness to extend the schedule avoids prejudice to Patent Owner. Id. at
11–12. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that “[j]oinder also will not affect
Patent Owner’s ability to enforce its patent; it has agreed to stay the district
court litigation.” Id. at 15. Petitioner asserts that if we deny joinder,
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

11

Petitioner would suffer prejudice by incurring higher costs and additional
delays because Petitioner would need to litigate the challenged claims in
district court. Id. at 15.
Petitioner asserts that this case resembles prior cases where the Board
has granted joinder, not cases where the Board has denied joinder. Joinder
Motion 12–14. Petitioner argues that this case does not resemble cases
“where the Board has noted the risk of ‘petitioners [waiting] to unveil
strategically their best prior art and arguments in serial petitions.’”
Id. at 13–14 (citing Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-
00628, slip op. 5 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 23)). Instead, Petitioner
argues that this case resembles Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd.,
Case IPR2012-00022, in which it was deemed that a later-filed petition
addressed an “oversight” in an earlier-filed petition. Id. at 12–13; Ariosa
Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., Case IPR2012-00022, slip op. 6–7
(PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) (Paper 104).
Patent Owner contends that the present Petition is a “second bite at the
apple” using our Institution Decision in the ’1457 IPR to remedy the
deficiency in Petitioner’s prior challenge. Opp. to Joinder 1 (citing Butamax
Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. 13
(PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8)); Prelim. Resp. 1–2. Patent Owner argues
that the present case resembles a number of cases where the Board denied
institution of petitions directed at addressing deficiencies in prior petitions.
Opp. to Joinder 13–15; Prelim. Resp. 12–16.
Patent Owner argues that joinder would complicate unduly the
’1457 IPR. Opp. to Joinder 6–8; Prelim. Resp. 6–8. Patent Owner argues
that joinder would add numerous issues and extensive briefing and evidence.
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

12

Id. Patent Owner notes that joinder would add an obviousness challenge and
all of the issues that apply to obviousness challenges. Opp. to Joinder 8;
Prelim. Resp. 7. Patent Owner also notes that joinder, which would
introduce the HDMI Specification into the ’1457 IPR, adds a dispute
regarding the public accessibility of the HDMI Specification. Opp. to
Joinder 8; Prelim. Resp. 7. Patent Owner further notes that joinder would
add a new declarant (Mr. Venuti) that Patent Owner would have to depose.
Opp. to Joinder 8; Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Additionally, Patent Owner argues
that evaluating Petitioner’s allegations that the HDMI Specification teaches
certain limitations of the challenged claims will be more complicated than
Petitioner suggests. Opp. to Joinder 8.
Patent Owner argues that joinder would also delay the ’1457 IPR and
prejudice Patent Owner. Opp. to Joinder 10–12; Prelim. Resp. 8–10. Patent
Owner notes that it has already deposed Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Houh,
and filed its Patent Owner Response in the ’1457 IPR. Prelim. Resp. 9.
Patent Owner asserts that joinder would require Patent Owner to depose Dr.
Houh again, and to file another set of responses. Id. Patent Owner argues
that joinder is not workable, given the upcoming dates for the oral argument
and the final written decision in the ’1457 IPR. Id.
Patent Owner contends that joinder would prejudice it by forcing it to
defend against challenges that would otherwise be barred under 35 U.S.C.
§ 315(b). Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner argues that joinder would subject
it to either nearly impossible deadlines or delays in resolution of the ’1457
IPR, delaying relief on Patent Owner’s infringement claims. Id. at 9–10.
Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner agreed to stay the
copending district court proceeding, Patent Owner asserts that it did so
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

13

without knowledge that Petitioner subsequently would file the present
Petition and Joinder Motion. Id. at 9. Patent Owner also argues that joinder
would give Petitioner “an unfair advantage by allowing it to use [Patent
Owner’s] Preliminary Responses, its Patent Owner Responses, its already-
conducted deposition of Dr. Houh, and the Board’s institution decisions as
blueprints for [the present Petition].” Id. at 10.
Patent Owner further asserts that Petitioner’s arguments about the
district court having to address the validity of the challenged claims do not
warrant joinder. Opp. to Joinder 5–6. With respect to Petitioner’s citation
of Rule 42.1(b), under which the rules must be “construed to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding,” Patent Owner
argues that “37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) pertains to the just, speedy, and inexpensive
resolution of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and not
to the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the parties’ disputes
generally.’” Id. at 5 (citing ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc., Case
IPR2013-00454, slip op. 7 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2013) (Paper 12)). Patent
Owner argues that contrary to Petitioner’s argument that there is a strong
public interest in the Board adjudicating challenges of closely related claims
in one proceeding, our rules expressly contemplate instituting proceedings
on some claims of a patent, while denying institution of other claims,
irrespective of how “closely related” the claims are. Id. (citing 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.108(a)). Additionally, Patent Owner argues that having to litigate the
validity of the challenged claims at the district court does not prejudice
Petitioner. Id. at 5–6. Because we previously declined to institute inter
partes review on claims 8, 27, 35, and 40, and because Petitioner does not
challenge those claims before us now, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

14

will have to litigate the validity of those claims at the district court,
regardless of whether we grant joinder here. Id. at 5–6, 12.
Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that the new evidence it submits was
unavailable when the ’1457 Petition was submitted, Patent Owner argues
that Petitioner “offers no explanation why it needed a declaration from Mr.
Venuti specifically.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner further asserts that
Petitioner says nothing about prior availability of Exhibit 1045, which
Petitioner submits in connection with Mr. Venuti’s Declaration to bolster its
contention that the HDMI Specification was publicly accessible. Id.
Additionally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “exercised no diligence in
attempting to secure the additional information regarding the alleged public
availability of the [HDMI Specification].” Id. at 12. In support of this
contention, Patent Owner notes that “[i]n connection with [Petitioner’s]
attempt to submit this information as supplemental information in the [’1457
IPR], Microsoft stated that it merely ‘attempted to contact HDMI Licensing,
LLC prior to submitting its petition but [it] did not speak with anyone with
the organization at that time.’” Id. (citing ’1457 IPR, Paper 14, 6 n. 4).
Patent Owner also argues that the cases on which Petitioner relies are
inapplicable. Opp. to Joinder 9–10; Prelim. Resp. 15–16. For example,
Patent Owner contends that, unlike Ariosa, the deficiencies in the ’1457
Petition did not stem from an “oversight.” Opp. to Joinder 9. Instead,
Patent Owner argues, “Petitioner deliberately selected its arguments and
evidence the first time, and now that it has lost, it went back to the well to
come up with something new.” Id.
In view of the circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that
Petitioner has established sufficiently that joinder to the ’1457 IPR is
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

15

warranted. Granting the joinder sought by Petitioner would complicate the
substantive issues in the ’1457 IPR significantly more than Petitioner
suggests. Contrary to Petitioner’s suggestion, joinder would do more than
simply add evidence that the HDMI Specification is prior art. See Joinder
Motion 8. Joinder would add to the ’1457 IPR an obviousness challenge to
claims 13–16, 33, 34, 46, and 82–86, thereby adding the numerous issues
that any obviousness analysis entails. Additionally, contrary to Petitioner’s
suggestion, the challenge raised in the present Petition does not rely on the
same references as the pending challenges in the ’1457 IPR. See Joinder
Motion 8 (“The -01052 proceeding involves . . . the same prior art . . . as the
-01457 proceeding.”). Unlike the challenge raised in the present Petition, no
pending claim challenge in the ’1457 IPR relies on the HDMI Specification.
See ’1457 Institution Decision 31. Indeed, joinder would add a significant
dispute regarding the public accessibility of the HDMI Specification.
Additionally, granting joinder would add significant procedural
complications and delay resolution of the ’1457 IPR. In the ’1457 IPR,
Patent Owner has filed its Response, and the date for the oral hearing is only
weeks away. Granting joinder would require adjusting the schedule to allow
Patent Owner discovery on the issues presented by the challenge in the
present Petition. Petitioner does not offer a practical way to accommodate
the additional discovery and briefing without rushing significantly all
involved or delaying the final written decision beyond its current due date of
March 19, 2016.
Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertions demonstrate that the present
Petition is directed at addressing shortcomings in the ’1457 Petition that we
identified in the ’1457 Institution Decision. See, e.g., Pet. 2–3. Petitioner
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

16

asserts that it needs to do so because Mr. Venuti’s declaration could not have
been provided with the ’1457 Petition. See, e.g., id. at 2; Joinder Motion 5,
13–14. Assuming, arguendo, Mr. Venuti’s declaration was unavailable
when the ’1457 Petition was filed, this does not persuade us that we should
grant Petitioner a second bite at the apple, at the expense of significantly
complicating and extending the ’1457 IPR. Regardless of whether Petitioner
could have acquired Mr. Venuti’s declaration when it prepared the ’1457
Petition, Petitioner had control of how it gathered and presented other
evidence regarding the public accessibility of the HDMI Specification. With
respect to the evidence that the ’1457 Petition did present, Petitioner gave
virtually no explanation of the significance of the evidence, providing only
the conclusory assertion that “[t]he public availability and publication of the
HDMI Specification is shown by numerous sources,” after which Petitioner
listed certain evidence without any further explanation. ’1457 Pet. 12–13.
We do not agree with Petitioner’s characterization of this case as akin to
Ariosa, where it was deemed that a flaw in an earlier petition resulted from a
“minor oversight.” See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., Case
IPR2012-00022, slip op. 6–7 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) (Paper 104); Joinder
Motion 12–13.
In view of the particular facts and issues before us in the instant case,
we exercise our discretion to deny Petitioner’s Joinder Motion.

III. DECISION ON THE PETITION
Institution of inter partes review is barred when the petition is filed
more than one year after the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging
infringement of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). The
IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

17

present Petition was filed more than one year after Petitioner was served
with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’182 patent. See Joinder
Motion 2, 4. Accordingly, in view of our decision to deny Petitioner’s
Joinder Motion, we deny the present Petition because it was not filed within
the time limits imposed under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is
instituted.

IPR2015-01052
Patent 8,144,182 B2

18

PETITIONER:

Joseph A. Micallef
Jeffrey P. Kushan
Douglas I. Lewis
Sidley Austin LLP
jmicallef@sidley.com
IPRNotices@sidley.com
dilewis@sidley.com

PATENT OWNER:

Amanda Hollis
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
biscotti-kirkland_team@kirkland.com