`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: February 12, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AVAYA INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`On February 11, 2013, a conference call was held between respective
`
`counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Chang, and Arbes. The subject
`
`matter of discussion was Patent Owner Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.’s
`
`(“Network-1”) request for authorization to file a reply to Petitioner Avaya
`
`Inc.’s (“Avaya”) opposition to Network-1’s motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Mr. Greg Dovel. See Papers 11, 12. Counsel for Network-1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`argued that Network-1 should be given the opportunity to (1) submit
`
`evidence and argument regarding the language of the protective orders
`
`(Exs. 1017, 1020) in Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent
`
`USA Inc., et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:11-cv-00492-LED-JDL, and Network-
`
`1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`
`6:08-cv-00030-LED, and Mr. Dovel’s alleged compliance with the same,
`
`and (2) submit further evidence and argument regarding Mr. Dovel’s alleged
`
`familiarity with the prior art references and other issues in this proceeding.
`
`Counsel for Avaya opposed Network-1’s request for a reply, arguing that
`
`Network-1 knew about the protective orders prior to filing its motion and
`
`should have argued its position in the motion.
`
`Replies in connection with motions for pro hac vice admission are not
`
`permitted absent authorization from the Board. Paper 5 at 2 (referencing
`
`the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in
`
`Case IPR2013-00010, at 3). Having heard from both parties, we do not find
`
`the additional evidence that Network-1 seeks to submit in a reply necessary
`
`at this time to decide the motion. Nor do we believe additional argument
`
`from the parties is necessary. The motion will be decided in due course.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Network-1 is not authorized to file a reply to
`
`Avaya’s opposition to Network-1’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mr. Greg Dovel.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Jonathan Lindsay
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`JSanok@Crowell.com
`JLindsay@Crowell.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert G. Mukai
`Charles F. Wieland III
`Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney P.C.
`Robert.Mukai@BIPC.com
`Charles.Wieland@BIPC.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
