`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
`
`
` Entered: June 22, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owners
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`
`A conference call in inter partes review IPR2013-00596, involving of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 B2 (“the ’310 patent,” Ex. 1001), occurred on
`
`June 21, 2017. Respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and
`
`Judges Turner, Chang, and Zecher were in attendance. A court reporter was
`
`present on the call, which was provided by Patent Owner. The purpose of the
`
`call was to discuss briefing in response to the remand by the U.S. Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit of this case for further proceedings. See
`
`PersonalWeb Tech., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Our reviewing court found that “[t]he Board did not sufficiently explain
`
`and support the conclusions that (1) Woodhill and Stefik disclose all of the
`
`elements recited in the challenged claims of the '310 patent and (2) a relevant
`
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Woodhill and Stefik in
`
`the way the '310 patent claims and reasonably expected success.” Id. at 993.
`
`To fulfill such considerations, we request briefing specifically pointing out
`
`where Petitioner made out a proper case of obviousness on the instituted
`
`ground, or where Petitioner failed to make out such a case. Emphasis should be
`
`placed on elucidating whether the Petition explains and supports the
`
`conclusions enumerated as (1) and (2) of the above citation.
`
`Each brief is limited to fifteen (15) pages and is due on July 12, 2017; on
`
`the conference call, the parties agreed to set a common time on that day for near
`
`simultaneous submission. At this time, the panel does not deem it necessary to
`
`receive responsive briefs from either side, but may revisit such considerations
`
`after receipt and review of each parties’ briefs. No new evidence of any kind
`
`may be proffered in each of the parties’ briefs.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that both parties shall file briefs, limited to fifteen (15) pages
`
`by July 12, 2017, as outlined above;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that neither party may submit new evidence of
`
`any kind, and neither party’s brief may contain or cite to new evidence outside
`
`of the record of this proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner will file a copy of the court
`
`reporter’s transcript of the conference call, separately as an exhibit, once it is
`
`available.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Mark W. Rygiel
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`mrygiel-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Updeep S. Gill
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.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
