`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`IPR LICENSING, INC.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,380,244
`
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CORRECT
`CLERICAL ERRORS AND RESUBMIT EXHIBITS
`
`Petitioners respectfully submit this reply in support of their motion to correct
`
`clerical errors in the petition and resubmit two exhibits. The reply is narrowly
`
`tailored to address misleading and inaccurate statements in the Patent Owner’s
`
`opposition to Petitioners’ motion.
`
`Contrary to the Patent Owner’s assertions, it will not be prejudiced by
`
`Petitioners’ motion or by submission of a complete copy of the ALJ’s Initial
`
`Determination from the ITC 800 Investigation as Exhibit 1011. First, Patent
`
`
`
`Reply re Motion to Correct Clerical Errors and Resubmit Exhibits
`Attorney Docket No. 14569.00009
`
`Owner inaccurately states that the complete contents of Exhibit 1011 “had not
`
`previously been part of the record.” Opp. at 2. On the contrary, Petitioner filed
`
`and served a complete copy of the document (then-labeled Exhibit 1010) when
`
`Petitioners filed the petition on March 21, 2014. Thus, the complete document was
`
`in fact previously part of the record, and Patent Owner was on notice of that fact.
`
`Petitioners’ subsequent and inadvertent replacement of the exhibit with a truncated
`
`copy was obviously a mistake, and Petitioners now seek to correct it.
`
`Second, Patent Owner’s argument that it has been prejudiced because its
`
`preliminary response did not address the contents of Exhibit 1011 is misplaced.
`
`Opp. at 2. Patent Owner directly addressed the invalidity findings contained in the
`
`inadvertently truncated portion of the exhibit, including the ALJ’s claim
`
`construction. Patent Owner Initial Response at 12-13. Accordingly, granting
`
`Petitioners’ motion and re-entering a complete copy of the Initial Determination as
`
`an exhibit does not justify a supplement to Patent Owner’s preliminary response.
`
`For the reasons stated above and in its motion, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request that this motion be granted and that the Patent Owner’s request for leave to
`
`supplement its preliminary response be denied. Should the Board allow Patent
`
`Owner to supplement its preliminary response, the supplement should be narrowly
`
`limited to further addressing the ALJ’s determination that the parent of the
`
`8,380,244 patent is invalid.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Dated: Aug. 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply re Motion to Correct Clerical Errors and Resubmit Exhibits
`Attorney Docket No. 14569.00009
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Charles M. McMahon/
`Charles M. McMahon
`Registration No. 44,926
`Attorney for Petitioners ZTE
`Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower, Suite 3600
`455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`Telephone: (312) 321-4200
`Fax: (312) 321-4299
`
`3
`
`
`
`COS for Reply re Motion to Correct Clerical Errors and Resubmit Exhibits
`Attorney Docket No. 14569.00009
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERRORS AND
`
`RESUBMIT EXHIBITS has been served on August 11, 2014, by electronic mail
`
`on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner IPR Licensing, Inc.:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jonathan D. Link
`Reg. No. 41,548
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 11th Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`E-mail: jonathan.link@lw.com
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Julie M. Holloway
`Reg. No. 44,769
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`505 Montgomery Street
`Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111-6538
`Telephone: (415) 391-0600
`Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
`E-mail: julie.holloway@lw.com
`
`/s/ Charles M. McMahon
`Charles M. McMahon
`
`1
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
