`571-272-7822 Date Entered: June 13, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC
`Patent Owner,
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, SCOTT R. BOALICK, BRYAN F. MOORE and,
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER SETTING DUE DATE FOR PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`
`
`
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.05
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U.S. Patent 7,461,353 (the ´353 Patent) on April 29, 2013 (the instant petition).
`
`With its Petition, Motorola filed a Motion for Joinder with Kyocera Corporation v.
`
`SoftView LLC, Case IPR2013-00007 (the Kyocera IPR). In its Motion For Joinder,
`
`Motorola represented that the instant petition asserts the same grounds of
`
`unpatentablity on which the Board had instituted the Kyocera IPR. Motion For
`
`Joinder, p. 4-5.
`
`On May 1, 2013, during a previously scheduled initial telephone conference
`
`in the Kyocera IPR, the Board authorized Kyocera and SoftView to file
`
`oppositions to Motorola’s Motion for Joinder. Both SoftView and Kyocera timely
`
`filed oppositions to Motorola’s Motion for Joinder. Citing statements that differ
`
`somewhat from those in the petition which led us to institute the Kyocera IPR,
`
`SoftView’s opposition to joining Motorola to the Kyocera IPR argues that the
`
`instant petition includes new grounds of patentability. Softview Opp. pp. 5-6.
`
`On May 29, 2013 the Board conducted a teleconference with counsel for
`
`Kyocera, Motorola, and SoftView during which this matter and Motorola’s motion
`
`to join IPR2013-00257 to IPR2013-00004 were discussed. During the May 29,
`
`2013 teleconference, counsel for Motorola explained that in a few instances,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`
`Motorola’s petition cites additional text in the same references to support the same
`
`grounds of unpatentability as those on which the Board instituted the Kyocera IPR.
`
`A review of the instant petition confirms that it is limited to asserting the same
`
`grounds of unpatentability as those on which the Kyocera IPR was instituted.
`
`Counsel for SoftView agreed during the May 29, 2013 teleconference that a Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response limited to the few specific points which are
`
`different in the instant petition from the Kyocera IPR would allow Softview to
`
`assert its positions on the record. During the May 29, 2013 teleconference, the
`
`Board set June 17, 2013 as the last date for SoftView to file a Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response to the instant petition as well as Motorola’s petition in
`
`IPR2013-00257.
`
`It is ORDERED that not later than June 17, 2013, SoftView may exercise
`
`its option to file a Preliminary Patent Owner's Response addressing only those
`
`specific points raised in the instant petition that are different from those in the
`
`Kyocera IPR.
`
`
`PETITIONER MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC: (via electronic transmission)
`John. C. Alemanni
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`Email:jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER SOFTVIEW LLC: (via electronic transmission)
`Ben Yorks
`Babak Redjaian
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`Email: byorks@irell.com
`Email: bredjaian@irell.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
