`---------------------
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`---------------------
`
`ATAS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CENTRIA
`Patent Owner
`
`---------------------
`Case IPR2013-00259
`Patent D527834
`---------------------
`
`ATAS INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S REQUEST FOR
`REFUND OF POST-INSTITUTION FEE
`
`
`
`ATAS International, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby files its request for a refund of the $14,000
`post-institution fee that was previously paid.
`On April 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`D527,834 (Paper No. 2), which is after March 19, 2013. At the time of filing, Petitioner paid the
`USPTO a total of $23,000, which included a $9,000 payment for the inter partes review request
`fee and a $14,000 payment for the post-institution fee required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1)-(1).
`On May 7, 2013, Petitioner filed a replacement petition for inter partes review of U.S.
`Patent No. D527,834 (“Petition”) (Paper No. 7) having corrected exhibit labels, which was
`accepted by the Board on May 13, 2013 (Paper No. 9).
`On September 24, 2013, the Board entered its decision denying the Petition and deciding
`not to institute inter partes review (Paper No. 11).
`On October 24, 2013, Petitioner filed a request for rehearing (Paper No. 12).
`On January 8, 2014, the Board entered its decision denying Petitioner’s request for
`rehearing (Paper No. 13).
`Accordingly, the Board has issued its final decision not to institute inter partes review,
`and Petitioner is entitled to request and receive a full refund of the post-institute fee that was
`previously paid. See e.g., 78 FR 4233 (January 18, 2013) available at
`
`
`
`http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-18/pdf/2013-00819.pdf (stating that “The entire
`post-institution fee would be returned to the petitioner if the Office does not institute a review.”);
`Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) FAQ at E7 available at
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner hereby requests a refund of the post-institution
`fee in the amount of $14,000. Petitioner prefers to have the entire amount refunded to the credit
`card that was used to make the original payment. If this is not possible, Petitioner requests that
`the entire amount be deposited to Deposit Account No. 50-3841.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Damon A. Neagle
`
` Damon A. Neagle
` Attorney for Petitioner
` Reg. No. 44,964
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 13, 2014
`
`DESIGN IP, P.C.
`Telephone:
`(610) 395-4900
`Facsimile:
`(610) 680-3312
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that service of the present REQUEST FOR REFUND
`
`OF POST-INSTITUTION FEE was made upon the patent owner by delivering a copy of the
`
`request on the date indicated below, via e-mail to the following counsel of record pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(3):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard L. Byrne, Esq.
`rbyrne@webblaw.com
`The Webb Law Firm, P.C.
`One Gateway Center
`420 Fort Duquesne Blvd., Suite 1200
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 13, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Damon Neagle
`Damon Neagle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
