`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: July 12, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS
`AB; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS INC.; and
`HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`Patent 6,218,930
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`A conference call in the above proceeding was held on July 11, 2013
`
`between Judges Lee, Chang, and Arbes, respective counsel for Petitioners
`
`and Patent Owner, and counsel for Avaya Inc. (“Avaya”), the petitioner in
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`Case IPR2013-00071. The purpose of the call was to discuss Petitioners’
`
`request for authorization to file a reply to the oppositions filed by Patent
`
`Owner and Avaya to Petitioners’ motion for joinder. See IPR2013-00071,
`
`Papers 33, 35; IPR2013-00386, Paper 5.
`
`Petitioners stated that their reply would include additional argument
`
`responding to:
`
` (1)
`
`the arguments made by Patent Owner and Avaya in their
`oppositions regarding the language of 35 U.S.C. § 315
`and its legislative history;
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`concerns raised in the oppositions over the potential
`impact to the schedule in Case IPR2013-00071 should
`Petitioners’ motion for joinder be granted; and
`
`the arguments made by Avaya in its opposition regarding
`an alleged distinction between Hewlett-Packard Co.
`(“HP”) and the other three petitioners in the instant
`proceeding for purposes of joinder.
`
`Patent Owner opposed Petitioners’ request, arguing that the Board has all of
`
`the information it needs regarding the statutory and scheduling issues to
`
`decide the motion for joinder. Avaya stated that it opposes Petitioners’
`
`motion for joinder only as to HP, but does not oppose Petitioners’ request
`
`for authorization to file a reply.
`
`Petitioners have not pointed to any issue raised in the oppositions that
`
`reasonably could not have been anticipated earlier and addressed in
`
`Petitioners’ initial motion. Indeed, Petitioners addressed the language of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315 and issues pertaining to scheduling in their motion. See Paper
`
`5 at 5-8. Further, we have reviewed the oppositions and do not see any point
`
`raised therein that renders necessary a reply. The Board is aware of the
`
`statute and legislative history and able to assess the impact of any joinder on
`
`the schedule in Case IPR2013-00071 without the need for additional
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`briefing.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioners are not authorized to file a reply to the
`
`oppositions to Petitioners’ motion for joinder; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be entered into the
`
`file of Case IPR2013-00071.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`
`Robert J. Walters
`Charles J. Hawkins
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`rwalters@mwe.com
`chawkins@mwe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert G. Mukai
`Charles F. Wieland III
`BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY P.C.
`1737 King St., Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Robert.Mukai@BIPC.com
`Charles.Wieland@BIPC.com
`
`THIRD PARTY AVAYA INC.:
`
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Jonathan Lindsay
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`JSanok@Crowell.com
`JLindsay@Crowell.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`