`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: February 12, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS
`AB; and AXIS COMMUNICATIONS INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`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 Petitioners’
`
`opposition to Network-1’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Greg
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`Dovel. See Papers 13, 16. Counsel for Network-1 argued that Network-1
`
`should be given the opportunity to (1) submit evidence and argument
`
`regarding the language of the protective order (Ex. 1016) 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 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 Petitioners 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 9 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
`
`Petitioners’ opposition to Network-1’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mr. Greg Dovel.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert G. Mukai
`Charles F. Wieland III
`Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney P.C.
`Robert.Mukai@BIPC.com
`Charles.Wieland@BIPC.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`