`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPENTV, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00274
`Patent 6,018,768
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REFUND OF POST-INSTITUTION FEE
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fee
`
`IPR2014-00274
`Patent No. 6,018,768
`
`Petitioner hereby files its request for a refund of the $16,000 post-institution
`
`fee that was previously paid.
`
`On December 19, 2013, Petitioner Netflix, Inc. filed a petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,018,768 and paid the USPTO a total of $25,000,
`
`which included a $9,000 payment for the inter partes review request fee and a
`
`$16,000 payment for the post-institution fee ($14,000, plus $400 per claim in
`
`excess of 15).
`
`The petition was granted a filing date of December 19, 2013. (Paper No. 3).
`
`On June 30, 2014, the Board entered a Decision – Denying Inter Partes Review
`
`(Paper No. 12) in which the Board denied institution of the requested inter partes
`
`review. The Board subsequently entered a Decision on Rehearing (Paper No. 14),
`
`in which the Board declined to modify the previous decision to deny institution.
`
`Accordingly, the inter partes review was never instituted.
`
`Therefore, because the petition to institute inter partes review was filed after
`
`March 19, 2013, and the proceeding did not institute, Petitioner Netflix, Inc. is
`
`entitled to request a refund of the post-institution 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 (“The entire
`
`post-institution fee would be returned to the petitioner if the Office does not
`
`institute a review.”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fee
`
`IPR2014-00274
`Patent No. 6,018,768
`
`Petitioner Netflix, Inc. hereby requests a refund of the $16,000 post-
`
`institution fee previously paid by Netflix, Inc. The refund may be deposited in
`
`Deposit Account No. 08-1394 of Haynes and Boone, LLP under attorney reference
`
`number 50796.4.
`
`Date: September 24, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Andrew S. Ehmke/
`Lead Counsel For Petitioner
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Registration No. 50,271
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`Telephone: 214/651-5116
`Facsimile: 214/200-0853
`Attorney Docket No.: 50796.4
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fee
`
`IPR2014-00274
`Patent No. 6,018,768
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, that
`
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service September 24, 2014
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail
`
`Document served Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fee
`
`Persons served Erika H. Arner (erika.arner@finnegan.com)
`Joshua L. Goldberg (joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA, 20190
`
`Russell E. Levine (russell.levine@kirkland.com)
`Eugene Goryunov (eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com)
`James B. Medek (james.medek@kirkland.com)
`Kirkland and Ellis, LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Suite 2400
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`/Andrew S. Ehmke/
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 50,271
`
`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
