`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Entered: June 10, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC., and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Deem Response Timely Filed
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`On June 1, 2015, after obtaining permission from the Board, Patent
`Owner filed a motion (Paper 30, “Mot.”) to deem its Response (Paper 29)
`and all accompanying exhibits (Ex. 2029–2324) timely filed. Patent Owner
`represented to the Board on May 27, 2015, that Petitioner does not oppose
`the motion. For the reasons stated below, Patent Owner’s motion is granted.
`The deadline for Patent Owner to file the Response was midnight on
`May 26, 2015. See Paper 22. The Patent Review Processing System
`(“PRPS”) indicates that the Response was filed on May 26, 2015, but that
`Exhibits 2029–2324 were filed on May 27, 2015.
`In support of its motion, Patent Owner provides the Declaration of
`Amber Collins, the person who handled the filing of the Response and
`related Exhibits. Mot., Ex. A. Ms. Collins explains that she encountered
`multiple difficulties with the upload speed of the PRPS system on the
`evening of May 26, 2015, and on Tuesday, May 27, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 3–9; see
`also Mot. 1–4 (discussing the technical difficulties Ms. Collins
`encountered). Patent Owner notes that it completed filing of the Response
`itself on May 26, 2015, and “served all documents, including the unfiled
`exhibits, on Petitioner via e-mail (pursuant to agreement) at 11:52 Eastern.”
`Mot. 2, citing Ex. B.
`A late action will be excused either 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). This rule must be construed to
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Weighing the prejudice to Petitioner of the delay in
`filing Patent Owner’s Exhibits against the prejudice to Patent Owner of not
`considering the Response, we determine that it would be in the interests of
`justice to excuse Patent Owner’s late action.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`We note that Patent Owner began the process of uploading its
`Response and fifty-nine (59) exhibits in this proceeding at approximately
`9:30 pm Central time, which is 10:30 pm Eastern time, approximately one
`and one-half hours prior to the deadline. Mot., Ex. A, ¶ 4. Although we are
`mindful that filings will at times be made close to the deadline, the amount
`of time allotted here was less than ideal because it did not permit for any
`difficulties. Patent Owner is reminded of the duty to make a good faith
`effort to meet deadlines. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(c)(3), 42.11, 42.12.
`Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to deem the Response and all
`accompanying Exhibits timely filed is granted.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01209
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONERS:
`
`Greg Gardella
`Scott McKeown
`OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADTM L.L.P.
`cpdocketgardella@obon.com
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven Sprinkle
`John Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinkelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`James Hall
`WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD, & BRUCCULERI, LLP
`crossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`
`
`4