`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 14 (CBM2015-00015)
` Paper 14 (CBM2015-00016)
`Paper 13 (CBM2015-00017)
` Paper 9 (CBM2015-00018)
`Entered: December 8, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
` CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2) 1
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, JEREMY M.
`PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our 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.
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`A teleconference was held on Friday, December 5, 2014, among
`Steven Baughman, Ching-Lee Fukuda, and Megan Raymond representing
`Petitioner; Michael Casey and Scott Davidson, representing Patent Owner;
`and Judges Bisk, Elluru, Plenzler, and Clements.
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner requested the teleconference.
`Petitioner requested the teleconference to seek authorization to file
`additional briefing on the issue of whether the challenged claims are directed
`to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the Federal
`Circuit’s decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, __ F.3d __, No. 2010-
`1544, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Given the panel’s familiarity with
`the case, we denied the request.
`Patent Owner requested the teleconference to seek permission to file
`short motions requesting that the PTAB reject the Petitioner’s corrected
`petitions in CBM2015-00015, CBM2015-00016, and CBM2015-00017 filed
`on November 21 (“the Corrected Petitions”) and order Petitioner to show
`cause why trial should be instituted in light of the defects identified in the
`Notice of Filing Date and the Corrected Petitions. Patent Owner objected to
`the current December 15, 2014 due dates for the Patent Owner Preliminary
`Responses in the above identified cases, arguing that the Corrected Petitions
`include significant changes. The panel is deliberating the current Scheduling
`Order for CBM2015-00015, CBM2015-00016, and CBM2015-00017, as
`well as CBM 2015-00018, and will issue a revised schedule. The revised
`schedule will set a due date of January 15, 2015, or later, for the Preliminary
`Patent Owner Responses in these cases.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner is not authorized to file additional briefing
`on the issue of whether the challenged claims are directed to ineligible
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is not authorized to file
`motions requesting that the PTAB reject the Corrected Petitions and order
`Petitioner to show cause why trial should be instituted; and
` FURTHER ORDERED that the due dates for the Preliminary Patent
`Owner Responses in CBM2015-00015, CBM2015-00016, CBM2015-
`00017, and CBM 2015-00018 are revised to no earlier than January 15,
`2015.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`PETIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`
`4
`
`
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
