`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