`
`Paper 41
`Entered: August 7, 2013
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AVAYA INC. and DELL INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-000711
`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 Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`A conference call in the above proceeding was held on August 5,
`2013 between Judges Lee, Chang, and Arbes; respective counsel for
`Petitioners Avaya Inc. (“Avaya”) and Dell Inc. (“Dell”); counsel for Patent
`
`
`1 Case IPR2013-00385 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`Owner Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. (“Network-1”); and counsel for
`third parties Sony Corporation of America and Hewlett-Packard Company
`(collectively, “Sony/HP”). Sony/HP requested the call to discuss their intent
`to file a petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 6 and 9 of
`Patent 6,218,930 (the “’930 patent”) along with a motion for joinder with
`this proceeding.
`Sony/HP represented during the call that their petition would include
`only the grounds of unpatentability on which the Board instituted a trial in
`this proceeding. Sony/HP argued that joinder would not require any change
`to the Scheduling Order (Paper 39) in this proceeding and is appropriate
`because Sony/HP’s request is similar to Dell’s request for joinder in Case
`IPR2013-00385, which was granted. Avaya and Network-1 stated that they
`oppose Sony/HP’s request for joinder because joinder would burden the
`existing parties, impact potentially the trial schedule in this proceeding, and
`diminish the chances of settlement. Dell stated that it had not yet
`determined whether it would oppose Sony/HP’s request for joinder.
`Subsequently, on August 6, 2013, Sony/HP filed their petition and
`motion for joinder in Case IPR2013-00495. In their motion, Sony/HP
`represent that the grounds of unpatentability asserted in their petition are
`“word-for-word identical” to the grounds asserted by Avaya in the instant
`proceeding and by Dell in Case IPR2013-00385. See IPR2013-00495, Paper
`7 at 1, 4, 12.
`As discussed during the call, Avaya, Dell, and Network-1 will each be
`permitted to file an opposition to Sony/HP’s motion for joinder by August
`13, 2013. The due date for Network-1 to file a preliminary response in Case
`IPR2013-00495, should it choose to do so, will be set to August 16, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`The preliminary response will be limited to addressing only points (if any)
`raised in Sony/HP’s petition that differ from the petitions filed in Cases
`IPR2013-00071 and IPR2013-00385.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Avaya, Dell, and Network-1 are each authorized to
`file in this proceeding an opposition to Sony/HP’s motion for joinder by
`August 13, 2013, limited to ten pages;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no replies are authorized;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Network-1 may file a preliminary
`response in Case IPR2013-00495 by August 16, 2013. The preliminary
`response may address only points (if any) raised in Sony/HP’s petition that
`differ from the petitions filed in Cases IPR2013-00071 and IPR2013-00385;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be entered into the
`file of Case IPR2013-00495.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
