Paper 15
`Entered: December 1, 2014
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`_______________
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Order
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`Entered: December 1, 2014
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`_______________
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Order
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`
`Introduction
`A conference call was held on November 26, 2014. The participants were
`Michael Kiklis on behalf of Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”), Jason Angell on
`behalf of Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Patent Owner”), and Judges Powell,
`Anderson, and Lee. The purpose of the call was to discuss (1) a request by
`Petitioner for leave to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper
`14), and (2) a request by Patent Owner for leave to file an opposition to
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 12).
`1. Petitioner’s Requested Reply on Real-Party-In-Interest
`Petitioner requested leave to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response in order to respond to the arguments Patent Owner advanced regarding
`real party-in-interest issues. Petitioner proposed that we set a due date of
`December 5, 2014, for filing the reply. Petitioner confirmed its intended reply
`would include only exhibits containing information exchanged by the parties
`during discovery that occurred prior to Patent Owner filing its Preliminary
`Response. Patent Owner opposed Petitioner’s request for a reply, arguing that
`Petitioner had an opportunity to address the real party-in-interest in its Petition.
`Petitioner responded that it believes its request is warranted because of the
`importance of the issue.
`We authorized Petitioner to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response by December 5, 2014. We instructed Petitioner that the reply may only
`address the issue of real party-in-interest and that the reply is limited to 10 pages in
`length. We further instructed Petitioner that it may only file exhibits with its reply
`that contain information Patent Owner had possession of before it filed its
`Preliminary Response.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`
`Patent Owner inquired whether it may file a surreply following Petitioner
`filing its reply. At this time, we do not authorize Patent Owner to file a surreply.
`2. Patent Owner’s Requested Opposition to Motion to Seal
`Patent Owner requested leave to file an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Seal because Patent Owner believes the Motion to Seal requests to seal exhibits
`that should not be sealed. The parties indicated during the call that they have not
`discussed specifics of Patent Owner’s concerns regarding the exhibits that
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal requests to be sealed. We instructed the parties to
`confer on this matter and strive to agree regarding which, if any, of the exhibits in
`question (or portions thereof) should be sealed. It is the intent of the Board that the
`parties work together, on this and other issues, to reduce the number of issues
`brought to us.
`We also instructed the parties that, in the event they cannot agree regarding
`which of the exhibits should be sealed, Patent Owner is authorized to file an
`opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Seal. An opposition to a motion is due one
`month from the date the motion was served. 37 C.F.R. § 42.25(a)(1). During the
`call, the parties confirmed that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal was served on Patent
`Owner on November 15, as indicated in the Motion. See Mot. 7. Accordingly, in
`the event it becomes necessary for Patent Owner to file an opposition, it is due by
`December 15, 2014. Additionally, if filed, the opposition is limited to 15 pages in
`length. 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(3). The parties also raised the issue of the proposed
`Protective Order submitted with the Motion to Seal. We will consider the
`proposed Protective Order when we consider the Motion.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file by December 5, 2014, a reply
`to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the reply being limited to 10 pages and
`addressing only the issue of real party-in-interest;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, with the foregoing reply, Petitioner may file
`only exhibits containing information that Patent Owner had possession of before
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response was filed;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to confer and attempt to agree
`regarding which, if any, of the exhibits (or portions thereof) identified in
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal should be sealed;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the parties cannot agree regarding
`which of the exhibits (or portions thereof) identified in the Motion to Seal should
`be sealed, Patent Owner is authorized to file by December 15, 2014, an opposition
`to the Motion to Seal, the opposition being limited to 15 pages.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael L. Kiklis
`Scott A. McKeown
`Katherine Cappaert
`OBLON SPIVAK
`cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`CPdocketcappaert@oblon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG LLP
`rfreitas@fawlaw.com
`jangell@fawlaw.com
`
`
`5
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
