`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: May 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244 B2
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Clerical Errors in the Petition
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244 B2
`
`
`
`The Board issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition where
`
`defects in the Petition were identified, giving five days to Petitioner to
`
`correct said defects. Paper 4 (“Notice”). Petitioner was authorized to file a
`
`Motion to Correct the Petition and an accompanying declaration averring the
`
`facts surrounding the failure to correct the noticed defects within the five-
`
`day time period. On May 19, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 104 to correct clerical errors of improper spacing in the Petition and
`
`unlabeled Exhibits. Paper 7 (“Motion”). Concurrent with the Motion,
`
`Petitioner filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 9), corrected Exhibits, and a
`
`declaration of Mr. Charles McMahon (Paper 8)1 in support of the Motion.
`
`Patent Owner has neither opposed nor agreed to Petitioner’s motion.
`
`
`
`Section 42.104(c) provides that:
`
` A motion may be filed that seeks to correct a clerical
`or typographical mistake in the petition. The grant of
`such a motion does not change the filing date of the
`petition.
`
`When determining whether to grant a motion to correct a petition, the
`
`Board will consider any substantive effect, including any effect on the patent
`
`owner’s ability to file a preliminary response. We have reviewed the
`
`Motion, the Corrected Petition and Exhibits, and the Declaration of Mr.
`
`McMahon. The Board concludes that the facts averred by Mr. McMahon
`
`show that the delay in correcting the defects identified in the Notice was
`
`unintentional, and that the effort to correct the defects was undertaken as
`
`promptly and diligently upon discovering the lapse. We are also persuaded
`
`that the corrections are not prejudicial to Patent Owner as they do not affect
`
`
`1 Declarations and supporting evidence shall be filed only as Exhibits going
`forward.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s ability to file a preliminary response.
`
`Therefore, we conclude that granting Petitioner’s motion does not
`
`change the filing date of the petition.
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is, therefore,
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this Decision constitutes Notice
`
`Accepting the Corrected Petition and Corrected Exhibits 1001 to 1024.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the unlabeled Exhibits 1001 to 1024 are
`
`expunged.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the statutory deadline for filing Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response is not altered by this Decision.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Charles M. McMahon (Lead Counsel)
`Brian A. Jones (Back-Up Counsel)
`cmcmahon@brinksgilson.com
`bjones@brinksgilson.com
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`NBC Tower, Suite 3600
`455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jonathan D. Link (Lead Counsel)
`Julie M. Holloway (Back-up Counsel)
`jonathan.link@lw.com
`Julie.holloway@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`
`
`
`
`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
