`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 20
`
` Entered: April 25, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EBAY ENTERPRISE, INC. and EBAY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LAWRENCE B. LOCKWOOD1
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases CBM2014-00025 (Patent 7,010,508)
`CBM2014-00026 (Patent 5,576,951)2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY and BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`1 Both Petitioner and Patent Owner filed updated notices pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.8 updating real parties-in-interest information. See, e.g.,
`CBM2014-00025, Papers 14, 16 and CBM2014-00026, Papers 15, 17.
`Accordingly, the parties shall use the updated title shown here, reflective of
`the current real parties-in-interest, for any further filings in either
`proceeding.
`
` 2
`
` This order addresses similar issues raised in both cases. We exercise
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however,
`are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00025 (Patent 7,010,508)
`CBM2014-00026 (Patent 5,576,951)
`
`
`
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`On April 25, 2014, a conference call was held between counsel for the
`
`respective parties and Judges Medley and Wood.
`
`The purpose of the conference call was for Petitioner to seek
`
`authorization to submit briefing, along with a declaration, describing the
`
`relationship between Petitioner and its customer iRobot who was sued for
`
`infringement of the involved patents. Patent Owner opposed the request.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner is authorized to provide
`
`additional briefing to address (1) the facts behind the late request for further
`
`briefing, (2) the relationship between Petitioner and its customer iRobot, and
`
`(3) the dismissal with prejudice of the case styled Landmark Technology,
`
`LLC v. iRobot Corporation (E.D.Tex. May 22, 2013) (NO. 6-13-cv-00411).
`
`In addition, Petitioner may submit a declaration, limited to no more than 5
`
`pages, in support of issues 1 and 2. Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`
`response to Petitioner’s additional briefing. No other briefing is authorized.3
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file, no later than April 29,
`
`2014, a brief limited to 7 pages, along with a declaration limited to 5 pages,
`
`as set forth per this order; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file, no later than May
`
`
`3 During the conference call, counsel for Petitioner represented that
`Petitioner has standing for the additional reason that it (eBay Inc.) has been
`charged with infringement. This assertion was raised in CBM2014-00026
`(Paper 1 at 3), but not in CBM2014-00025. Petitioner is not authorized to
`submit additional briefing or evidence regarding this additional standing
`issue.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00025 (Patent 7,010,508)
`CBM2014-00026 (Patent 5,576,951)
`
`2, 2014, a response limited to 7 pages, as set forth per this order.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Don Daybell
`James Maune
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`ddaybell@orrick.com
`jmaune@orrick.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Sterne
`Donald Featherstone
`Jason Eisenberg
`Richard Bemben
`Byron Pickard
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`rsterne@skgf.com
`donf-PTAB@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`bpickard-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
