{"id":1509,"date":"2014-10-02T11:53:07","date_gmt":"2014-10-02T15:53:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/?p=1509"},"modified":"2014-10-05T13:56:03","modified_gmt":"2014-10-05T17:56:03","slug":"joinder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/?p=1509","title":{"rendered":"Joinder — Split decisions on the Same Day are Revealing"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited v. Zond, LLC<\/em>, IPR2014-00858, Paper 13\u00a0(October 2, 2014), the Board granted Fujitsu’s motion to join the proceeding with prior IPR2014-00803.<\/p>\n

The Board noted that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act permits joinder of like review proceedings, and said that\u00a0acting on behalf of the Director, it has the discretion to join an inter partes review with another inter partes<\/em> review, citing. 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 315.\u00a0 The Board said that joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 315(c); 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.122. When exercising its 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. See 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 316(b); 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.1(b). The Board considers the impact of both substantive issues and procedural matters on the proceedings.<\/p>\n

The moving party bears the burden to show that joinder is appropriate. 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 42.20(c), 42.122(b). In the instant case,\u00a0Fujitsu argued that joinder was appropriate because: (1) it is the most expedient way to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the related proceedings; (2) The\u00a0petition are substantively identical; (3) Fujitsu agreed to consolidate filings and discovery; (4) joinder would not affect the schedule; (5) joinder would streamline the proceedings, reduce the costs and burdens on the parties, and increase efficiencies for the Board without any prejudice to patent owner.<\/p>\n

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.\u00a0Arendi S.A.R.L.<\/em>, IPR2014-01142, Paper 11 (October 2, 2014), decided the same day the Board denied joinder which would have saved the Petition from being barred under 35 USC 315(b), noting:<\/p>\n