`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00717 Paper 7
`IPR2014-00735 Paper 9
`Entered July 10, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC; and
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00717
`Patent 6,108,686
`Case IPR2014-00735
`Patent 6,618,593 B11
` ____________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, DAVID C. McKONE, STACEY G. WHITE,
`PETER P. CHEN, FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, TINA E. HULSE, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER CONCERNING PETITIONER’S UNAUTHORIZED
`SUBSTANTIVE E-MAIL
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00717; IPR2014-00735
`Patent No. 6,108,686; 6,618,593 B1
`
`
`This paper concerns the impropriety of e-mail correspondence received by
`the Board from Andrea G. Reister, counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.;
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America,
`LLC (collectively, “Petitioner”) on July 10, 2014. The subject line of Ms.
`Resister’s e-mail identifies it as “Inquiry Following June 30 Conference re:
`IPR2014-00717 & 735.” This is the same subject line that appeared in
`unauthorized e-mail correspondence received by the Board from Andrew Crain,
`counsel for Black Hills Media LLC (“Patent Owner”) on July 9, 2014. Ms.
`Reister’s e-mail appears to be a response to Mr. Crain’s e-mail. We refer to our
`Orders of earlier today (IPR2014-00717, Paper 6 and IPR2014-00735, Paper 8). In
`those orders we stated that Mr. Crain’s July 9, 2014 e-mail correspondence was
`inappropriate and that any further such unauthorized correspondence with the
`Board will likely result in sanctions against Mr. Crain and Patent Owner. We also
`ordered that Petitioner was not authorized to respond.
`We assume that Petitioner’s counsel transmitted her e-mail before becoming
`aware of our prohibition against a response to Patent Owner’s July 9, 2014 e-mail.
`While the desire of Petitioner’s counsel to respond to Mr. Crain’s unauthorized e-
`mail is understandable, the content of the e-mail received today is just as
`inappropriate as the correspondence that prompted it. If counsel becomes
`concerned about unauthorized filings by an opponent, counsel should request a
`conference with the Board. A substantive e-mail response is not appropriate and
`will not be considered. Any further such filings by either party will likely result in
`sanctions.
`In consideration of the above, it is:
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00717; IPR2014-00735
`Patent No. 6,108,686; 6,618,593 B1
`
`
`ORDERED that the July 10, 2014 e-mail from Ms. Reister will not be
`considered by the Board;
`FURTHER ORDERED that neither party is authorized to make any
`additional filings concerning the unauthorized e-mails of July 9 and July 10, 2014;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, except as otherwise authorized in the Rules of
`Practice in Patent Cases, 37 C.F.R. § 42 et seq., no motions or other substantive
`correspondence may be filed in this proceeding without prior, express
`authorization.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrea Reister
`areister@cov.com
`
`Gregory Discher
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew Crain
`Andrew.crain@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`Vivek Ganti
`Vivek.ganti@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`
`
`
`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
