`
`
` Paper 18
`
` Entered: March 10, 2014
`
`Trial@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`AGILYSYS, INC., ET AL.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00013
`Patent 6,982,733
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00013
`Patent 6,982,733
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`On February 11, 2014, the Board ordered Petitioner to file, within one week
`
`of the date of the Order (Paper 14), a paper to re-designate lead and backup
`
`counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) by regarding itself as a single
`
`party, and to provide updated service information in light of the re-designation of
`
`lead and backup counsel. To this date, Petitioner remains in non-compliance
`
`with the Order and 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a). Although Petitioner did file, on
`
`February 18, 2014, a Notice of Re-Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel, the
`
`paper purports to redefine Petitioner, without authorization of the Board, as
`
`excluding Apple Inc., one of the 5 companies which jointly filed the petition in this
`
`proceeding. Paper 15.
`
`
`
`Petitioner filed no request for rehearing of the Board’s Order of
`
`February 11, 2014, prior to filing the non-compliant paper dated
`
`February 18, 2014. Petitioner further did not alert the Board of its non-
`
`compliance. The Board noticed the non-compliance on its own, and then initiated
`
`a telephone conference call to discuss the matter. The conference call was held on
`
`March 7, 2014. The participants were respective counsel for the parties and
`
`Judges Lee, Petravick, Rice, and White.
`
`Discussion
`
`
`
`The conference call began with the Board stating the impropriety of
`
`Petitioner’s actions in responding to the Board’s Order of February 11, 2014. Had
`
`the Board not noticed the non-compliance, this proceeding would have continued
`
`indefinitely without a clear picture of the constitution of Petitioner or a clear
`
`designation of lead and backup counsel. More importantly, Petitioner chose to file
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00013
`Patent 6,982,733
`
`a paper purporting to re-designate counsel for less than all of the companies that
`
`jointly filed the petition, and that the Board ruled collectively constitute Petitioner,
`
`without seeking an opportunity to explain its difficulties to the Board and to ask for
`
`an alternative resolution. Such conduct is inappropriate. We give notice to
`
`Petitioner that such action should not be repeated. It should have contacted the
`
`Board, prior to filing a noncompliant paper, to discuss an alternative resolution.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding the contrary indication in Paper 15, Apple Inc. remains a
`
`member of the group of five companies that is collectively regarded as Petitioner.
`
`That will remain so unless and until the Board authorizes withdrawal of Apple Inc.
`
`from the proceeding or terminates the proceeding with respect to Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner asked that the required filing of a paper re-designating
`
`lead and backup counsel for Petitioner as one party be postponed until after the
`
`Board has decided whether to allow Apple Inc. to withdraw from this proceeding.
`
`The postponement request is granted.
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner explained that Petitioner would like to seek
`
`authorization for Apple Inc. to withdraw from this proceeding. The Board stated
`
`that the parties can move jointly to terminate the proceeding with respect to Apple
`
`Inc. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. However, counsel for Patent Owner stated that Patent
`
`Owner and Petitioner have not reached an agreement that would lead to the filing
`
`of a joint motion to terminate the proceeding with respect to Apple Inc., and that
`
`Patent Owner opposes the withdrawal of Apple Inc. from the proceeding at this
`
`time.
`
`
`
`Under these circumstances, we authorize briefing by the parties as to why
`
`Petitioner should be allowed to reconstitute itself to exclude Apple, Inc. During
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00013
`Patent 6,982,733
`
`the conference call, we suggested that such briefing from Petitioner be filed as a
`
`belated rehearing request. Upon further consideration, however, we rescind that
`
`authorization, and require that Petitioner’s briefing be filed as a Motion to
`
`Reconstitute Petitioner to Exclude Apple Inc., subject to 37 C.F.R. § 42.20.
`
`It is
`
`Order
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a Motion to Reconstitute
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner to Exclude Apple Inc., by March 12, 2014, limited to 7 pages;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that in the motion, Petitioner shall specifically
`
`address what withdrawal of Apple Inc. would enable Apple Inc. to do, in terms of
`
`filing or maintaining other petitions or actions against Patent Owner with regard to
`
`the same patent, including, but not limited to, an additional inter partes review
`
`petition or covered business method patent review petition, which it otherwise
`
`could not do if not withdrawn from this proceeding; and why no prejudice would
`
`be imposed on Patent Owner by allowing Apple Inc. to withdraw at this time;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a Response to
`
`Petitioner’s motion, limited to 7 pages, within 5 calendar days of the date of filing
`
`of Petitioner’s motion;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply, limited
`
`to 5 pages, to Patent Owner’s Response, within 5 calendar days of the filing of
`
`Patent Owner’s opposition;
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00013
`Patent 6,982,733
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that if all of Petitioner’s constituents do not speak
`
`with one voice in the motion, the motion will be dismissed and not considered on
`
`the merits.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Richard Zembeck
`Gilbert Greene
`richard.zembeck@nortonrosefulbright.com
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Osborne
`Michael Fabiano
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`