`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date: May 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CLOUDING IP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00586
`Patent 6,738,799 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, RAMA G. ELLURU, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`An initial conference call was held on April 21, 2014, between respective
`
`counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Elluru, and Busch. In that conference call,
`
`counsel for Patent Owner requested, based on the information provided in the
`
`patent owner preliminary response, the filing of a motion for additional discovery
`
`to seek information on whether Google Inc. is a real party-in-interest for the
`
`Petitioner. According to counsel for Patent Owner, the discovery sought will be
`
`limited in scope and be in the form of five or fewer focused interrogatories. Paper
`
`12. We instructed Patent Owner to file the proposed interrogatories for our
`
`consideration of whether to authorize filing of a motion for additional discovery.
`
`Id. On May 6, 2014, Patent Owner filed the proposed interrogatories. Paper 14.
`
`Discussion
`
`
`
`We have considered Patent Owner’s proposed interrogatories (Paper 14),
`
`and find that they are not “focused” as was represented by counsel for Patent
`
`Owner in the conference call of April 21, 2014. For instance, the interrogatories
`
`are not limited to questions concerning the filing of inter partes review of Patent
`
`6,738,799, but refers generally to challenges of invalidity of Patent 6,738,799
`
`anywhere. Also, with regard to payment of money, the interrogatories inquire
`
`about payments by entities other than Google Inc., and ask about payments by
`
`Google Inc. not necessarily related to the filing of the petition in this proceeding.
`
`Furthermore, proposed Interrogatory 5 is not within the scope of the subject matter
`
`discussed on April 21, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00586
`Patent 6,738,799
`
`
`
`Order
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is not authorized to file a motion for
`
`additional discovery which includes the proposed interrogatories submitted on
`
`May 6, 2014 (Paper 14);
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Patent Owner and counsel for
`
`Petitioner shall confer about the appropriate scope of additional discovery
`
`requested by Patent Owner relating to the issue of whether Google Inc. is a real
`
`party-in-interest of Petitioner, and then initiate a conference call with the Board,
`
`within one week of the date of this communication, to indicate whether agreement
`
`has been reached in that regard.
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Michael Kiklis
`Scott McKeown
`CPdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`codocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`Amy Embert
`tarek.fahmi@fseip.com
`amy.embert@fseip.com
`
`
`3
`
`
`
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
