`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: July 12, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS
`AB; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS INC.; and
`HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`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 Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`A conference call in the above proceeding was held on July 11, 2013
`
`between Judges Lee, Chang, and Arbes, respective counsel for Petitioners
`
`and Patent Owner, and counsel for Avaya Inc. (“Avaya”), the petitioner in
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`Case IPR2013-00071. The purpose of the call was to discuss Petitioners’
`
`request for authorization to file a reply to the oppositions filed by Patent
`
`Owner and Avaya to Petitioners’ motion for joinder. See IPR2013-00071,
`
`Papers 33, 35; IPR2013-00386, Paper 5.
`
`Petitioners stated that their reply would include additional argument
`
`responding to:
`
` (1)
`
`the arguments made by Patent Owner and Avaya in their
`oppositions regarding the language of 35 U.S.C. § 315
`and its legislative history;
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`concerns raised in the oppositions over the potential
`impact to the schedule in Case IPR2013-00071 should
`Petitioners’ motion for joinder be granted; and
`
`the arguments made by Avaya in its opposition regarding
`an alleged distinction between Hewlett-Packard Co.
`(“HP”) and the other three petitioners in the instant
`proceeding for purposes of joinder.
`
`Patent Owner opposed Petitioners’ request, arguing that the Board has all of
`
`the information it needs regarding the statutory and scheduling issues to
`
`decide the motion for joinder. Avaya stated that it opposes Petitioners’
`
`motion for joinder only as to HP, but does not oppose Petitioners’ request
`
`for authorization to file a reply.
`
`Petitioners have not pointed to any issue raised in the oppositions that
`
`reasonably could not have been anticipated earlier and addressed in
`
`Petitioners’ initial motion. Indeed, Petitioners addressed the language of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315 and issues pertaining to scheduling in their motion. See Paper
`
`5 at 5-8. Further, we have reviewed the oppositions and do not see any point
`
`raised therein that renders necessary a reply. The Board is aware of the
`
`statute and legislative history and able to assess the impact of any joinder on
`
`the schedule in Case IPR2013-00071 without the need for additional
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`briefing.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioners are not authorized to file a reply to the
`
`oppositions to Petitioners’ motion for joinder; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be entered into the
`
`file of Case IPR2013-00071.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00386
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`
`Robert J. Walters
`Charles J. Hawkins
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`rwalters@mwe.com
`chawkins@mwe.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
`
`THIRD PARTY AVAYA INC.:
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
