`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: July 29, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., JAGUAR LAND ROVER
`NORTH AMERICA LLC, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., TOYOTA
`MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
`AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`Patent 6,324,463
`_______________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`On July 2, 2014, we issued a Decision to Institute inter partes review
`
`in this proceeding (Paper 11, hereafter “Decision to Institute”). On July 10,
`
`2014, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Rehearing of the Decision to Institute
`
`(Paper 14, hereafter “Motion for Rehearing” or “Mot.”). The Motion for
`
`Rehearing contends our institution of inter partes review was an abuse of
`
`discretion because the Petition and the associated papers failed to comply
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and § 42.10. See Mot. 1, 5. For the following
`
`reasons, we deny the Motion for Rehearing.
`
`The Motion Does Not Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`Our rules require that any request for rehearing must specifically
`
`identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked, and further identify “the place where each matter was
`
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d) (2013). The Motion for Rehearing fails to identify where the
`
`issues concerning 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and § 42.10 were previously addressed.
`
`These matters could have been raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 7), but were not. Patent Owner attempted to raise these
`
`matters in its Motion for Joinder (Paper 9). However, we denied that portion
`
`of the Motion for Joinder as an unauthorized motion. See Decision re
`
`Motion for Joinder (Paper 13), 2. The reference to “a motion” in
`
`Rule 42.71(d) applies to authorized motions, not unauthorized motions.
`
`Thus, the Motion for Rehearing is improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`(2013).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`The Petition Complies with Rules 42.8 and 42.10
`
`Nonetheless, we will also consider the merits of the Motion for
`
`Rehearing. The Motion requests reconsideration of our Decision to Institute
`
`because the Petition is defective for failing to identify counsel properly, and
`
`that alleged defect was never corrected. See Mot. 1, 5. In particular, our
`
`rules require that if a party is represented by counsel, then (1) that counsel
`
`must be identified, and (2) the party must designate a lead counsel and a
`
`back-up counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.10(a) (2013). Our rules further require “[a]
`
`power of attorney must be filed with the designation of counsel.” Id.
`
`§ 42.10(b).
`
`We are not persuaded that those rules were violated. The Petition
`
`identifies Vaibhav Kadaba as lead counsel for Petitioner in this proceeding,
`
`and six other practitioners (Clay Holloway, Matthew Satchwell, Steven
`
`Reynolds, William Mandir, John Caracappa, and Matthew Moore) as back-
`
`up counsel. See Pet. 4–5. We therefore conclude the Petition complies with
`
`Rules 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a).
`
`Patent Owner points out, correctly, that each one of the various
`
`Powers of Attorney for the seven companies bringing the Petition (Paper 2,
`
`collectively) is granted to only one or two of the seven practitioners listed as
`
`counsel in the Petition. In others words, none of the Powers of Attorney
`
`filed in this proceeding is granted to all seven practitioners. That fact,
`
`however, does not nullify the naming of the seven practitioners as lead and
`
`back-up counsel in the Petition, having all the rights and responsibilities
`
`which apply to such roles. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that a
`
`company’s failure to name a specific practitioner in a Power of Attorney as
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`filed in the present proceeding means that practitioner lacks authority to
`
`represent the company in this proceeding. See Mot. 4–5. Instead, we accept
`
`as true the representation that the naming of lead and back-up counsel in the
`
`Petition implies: all named counsel are duly authorized to represent the
`
`Petitioner (i.e., all seven companies bringing the Petition) in this proceeding
`
`as circumstances require.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`Conclusion
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing is DENIED.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00291
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Wab Kadaba
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`Clay Holloway
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`Matthew D. Satchwell
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com
`
`
`Steven Reynolds
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com
`
`
`William H. Mandir
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`
`
`John M. Caracappa
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`jcaracap@steptoe.com
`
`
`Matthew J. Moore
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`Kelly L. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`5
`
`