throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`Entered: February 6, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00083 (JYC)
`Patent 6,415,280
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`
`A telephone conference call was held on February 5, 2013, between the
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent judges and respective counsel for the parties. EMC’s counsel initiated the
`
`call to seek authorization to file three replacement exhibits in this proceeding and
`
`two other inter partes review proceedings (Ex. 1038 in IPR2013-00082; Ex. 1034
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00083
`Patent 6,415,280
`
`in IPR2013-00083; and Ex. 1047 in IPR2013-00085). Each of the original exhibits
`
`appears to be a claim chart from another proceeding.
`
`During the conference call, EMC requested authorization to file the
`
`replacement exhibits and indicated that the replacement exhibits would contain no
`
`substantive changes. Rather, the replacement exhibits would simply present the
`
`information in a short, concise, and user-friendly manner that would be easier for
`
`the Board to consider the information. EMC further explained that the replacement
`
`exhibit for Ex. 1047 in IPR2013-00085 would contain information regarding the
`
`prior art publication rather than the alleged on-sale product. EMC also offered to
`
`provide confirmation that no new information would be provided in the
`
`replacement exhibits. Prior to the conference call, EMC provided a copy of the
`
`proposed replacement exhibits to counsel for Personal Web.
`
`In response, Personal Web argued that, based on its review of the proposed
`
`replacement exhibits, they appear to contain substantive and drastic changes,
`
`including removing information that is helpful to Personal Web. According to
`
`Personal Web, the changes are more than correcting a clerical or typographical
`
`mistake under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) and Personal Web would be prejudiced as it
`
`has already been analyzing the petitions, declarations, and exhibits for roughly one
`
`and half months. Personal Web also pointed out that 37 C.F.R. § 42.123 permits a
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00083
`Patent 6,415,280
`
`motion to submit supplemental information after a trial has been instituted, but not
`
`before institution.
`
` Upon consideration of both parties’ arguments, the Board finds Personal
`
`Web’s arguments persuasive. The original exhibits appear to be readable and are
`
`presented in a sufficiently organized format. Moreover, the filing of replacement
`
`exhibits at this time before institution would place an unnecessary burden on
`
`Personal Web while they prepare to file patent owner preliminary responses that
`
`are due next month.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that EMC’s request for authorization to file replacement
`
`exhibits is denied.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00083
`Patent 6,415,280
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Peter M. Dichiara, Esq.
`David L. Cavanaugh, Esq.
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`daidcavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa, Esq.
`Updeep. S. Gill, Esq.
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.com
`
`
`
`4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket