`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
` Entered: July 16, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IRON DOME LLC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871
`
`
`On July 9, 2014, Petitioner filed a Reply to Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 11) and a Motion to Exclude (Paper 12).
`
`Our rules do not contemplate or authorize the filing of a reply to a
`
`preliminary response. If a party desires to file such a reply, it would have to
`
`seek prior authorization from the Board. Likewise, a motion will, generally,
`
`not be entered without prior Board authorization. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b).
`
`“Motions where authorization is automatically granted, without a conference
`
`with the Board, include requests for rehearing, observations on cross-
`
`examination, and motions to exclude evidence.” Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,762-63 (Aug. 14, 2012); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(c). However, parties are preauthorized to file motions to exclude
`
`only after a trial has been instituted and a Scheduling Order has been issued.
`
`“Once the time for taking discovery in the trial has ended, the parties will be
`
`authorized to file motions to exclude evidence believed to be inadmissible.”
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,758 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012) (emphasis added); see also id. at 48,763 (“The Board expects that the
`
`Scheduling Order will preauthorize and set times for the filing of . . .
`
`motions to exclude evidence based on inadmissibility.”).
`
`Petitioner neither requested nor received authorization to file its Reply
`
`to Preliminary Response or its Motion to Exclude. Because the papers are
`
`unauthorized, they are expunged.
`
`
`
`Order
`
`It is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 11) and a Motion to Exclude (Paper 12) are expunged.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Steven Yu
`ROZMED LLC
`syu@patent-intercept.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`bob@curfiss.com
`
`and
`
`David O. Simmons
`IVC Patent Agency
`dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`
`
`3