`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 24
`
`Entered: July 6, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-01102 (Patent 5,228,077)
`IPR2014-01103 (Patent 5,552,917)
`IPR2014-01104 (Patent 5,414,761)
`IPR2014-01106 (Patent 5,255,313)1
`____________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP and SALLY C. MEDLEY, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01102 (Patent 5,228,077)
`IPR2014-01103 (Patent 5,552,917)
`IPR2014-01104 (Patent 5,414,761)
`IPR2014-01106 (Patent 5,255,313)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On July 2, 2015, a conference call was held involving counsel for the parties
`and Judges Blankenship and Medley. Petitioner requested the conference call to
`discuss the late filing of Petitioner’s replies and exhibits in support of the replies.
`Petitioner requests the Board excuse the late filings. Patent Owner opposes.
`
`According to counsel for Petitioner, Petitioner ran into technical difficulties
`when it filed its papers in the four proceedings, resulting in the filing of replies and
`exhibits a day late. Petitioner contacted the Board the day after Petitioner’s papers
`were due to alert the Board of the late filing. Patent Owner explained that they
`opposed excusing the late filings because it would set a bad precedent to accept
`late filings. Patent Owner also argued that it would be prejudiced if we excused
`the late filings, because Patent Owner would be compressed for time to meet Due
`Date 4. Patent Owner seeks authorization to file a motion to expunge the late–filed
`documents.
`A late action will be excused on a showing of good cause or upon a Board
`decision that consideration on the merits would be in the interests of justice. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3). Upon weighing the prejudice to Patent Owner of the one day
`late filing versus the prejudice to Petitioner if we do not consider, on the merits, the
`replies and exhibits, we determine that it is in the interests of justice to consider the
`late–filed documents.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for us to excuse the late filing of its
`replies and exhibits is granted;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01102 (Patent 5,228,077)
`IPR2014-01103 (Patent 5,552,917)
`IPR2014-01104 (Patent 5,414,761)
`IPR2014-01106 (Patent 5,255,313)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to file a motion to
`expunge is denied; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Date 4 is reset to expire on July 17, 2015.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01102 (Patent 5,228,077)
`IPR2014-01103 (Patent 5,552,917)
`IPR2014-01104 (Patent 5,414,761)
`IPR2014-01106 (Patent 5,255,313)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Douglas Miro
`dmiro@ostrolenk.com
`
`
`Peter Kang
`pkang@sidley.com
`
`Theodore Chandler
`tchandler@sidley.com
`
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`fpazmandi@sidley.com
`
`Keith Barkaus
`kbarkaus@ostrolenk.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eric Maiers
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`
`
`Michael Nicodema
`nicodemam@gtlaw.com
`
`
`James Lukas
`lukasj@gtlaw.com
`
`Robbie Harmer
`harmerr@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`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
