`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`MACROSOLVE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00140
`
`Patent 7,822,816
`
`NOTICE OF PROPOSED MOTIONS
`
`BY PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF PROPOSED MOTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Office Trial Practice Guide, Patent Owner, Macrosolve, Inc. provides its
`
`notice regarding anticipated motions. The initial conference call in this matter is scheduled for
`
`June 19, 2014. At present the Patent Owner contemplates at least the following motions:
`
`1.
`
`The patent involved in this proceeding, US. Patent No. 7,822,816, was recently
`
`the subject of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. 10187,
`
`issued June 10, 2014, which
`
`canceled all claims.
`
`It is contemplated that the Reexamination Certificate represents the final
`
`disposition of the Ex-Parte ’816 patent reexamination. Patent Owner accordingly requests
`
`permission to file a motion to terminate this IPR pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.72 because the
`
`claims of the ’81 6 Patent have already been canceled and the present Inter Partes review is moot.
`
`However, Patent Owner points out that a continuation application is still pending before the
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office.
`
`2.
`
`Motion for Discovery Regarding the Membership of Requestor RPX and the Real
`
`Party or Parties—in—Interest of Requestor. As detailed in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`
`at the time of filing of the present Inter Partes Review (IPR), the ‘816 patent was being enforced
`
`in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The ‘816 patent had been in
`
`litigation with numerous Defendants for over one year prior to the filing of the Request for Inter
`
`Partes Review. RPX boasts a membership network of 168 client companies of these less than
`
`half are publicly identified by RPX. Patent Owner respectfully requests discovery as to all the
`
`members of Petitioner RPX in order to determine the real party-in-interest in the present IPR.
`
`3.
`
`Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
`
`It
`
`is
`
`anticipated that discovery of the members of Petitioner RPX will reveal a real party or parties-in-
`
`interest who would be precluded by statute from filing the present Request for Inter Partes
`
`
`
`Review pursuant to U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). Subject to the determination of
`
`the real party or parties-in-interest, Patent Owner requests permission to file a Motion to Dismiss
`
`for Lack of Standing or Alternatively Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
`
`4.
`
`Motion to Take the Deposition of AL. Navasimha Reddy. Petitioner submitted
`
`the Declaration of Dr. Reddy in support of its Petition for Inter Partes Review. Patent Owner
`
`requests permission to take the deposition of Dr. Reddy.
`
`Patent Owner does not presently intend to file any other motions but nevertheless
`
`reserves the right to file a motion to exclude evidence or a motion for observation on the dates
`
`set forth in the scheduling order for this case, as well as to request permission to file any other
`
`motions that become necessary as the case develops (e.g., additional motions for discovery).
`
`June 17, 2014
`
`#3406l-v
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/terry 1. watt/
`Terry L. Watt
`Registration No. 42214
`
`Scott R. Zingerman
`Registration No. 35,422
`
`Customer No. 22206
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 CPR. § 42.205, that service was made
`
`on the PETITIONER as follows:
`
`Manner of Service:
`
`US. Mail
`
`Documents served:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF PROPOSED MOTIONS
`
`Persons Served:
`
`David L. McCombs
`
`Thomas B. King
`Theodore M. Foster
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Ste. 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`W T
`
`erry L. Watt
`Reg. No. 42214
`
`#37837—v
`
`
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
