`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 23
`
` Entered: December 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`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 December 12, 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 Patent Owner’s request
`
`for authorization to file a motion for additional discovery related to the real party-
`
`in-interest issue.
`
`Discussion
`
`Patent Owner explained that it desired to seek additional discovery related to
`
`how Petitioner spends the revenue it receives from members. Patent Owner stated
`
`that, if authorized, its motion would include detailed requests about specific
`
`information that Patent Owner seeks related to Petitioner’s expenditures. Patent
`
`Owner cited certain record evidence, including certain portions of Mr. Jakel’s
`
`deposition testimony (Exhibit 2001), as providing reason to believe that additional
`
`discovery related to Petitioner’s expenditures would produce evidence supporting
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the real party-in-interest issue.
`
`Petitioner opposed Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion
`
`seeking additional discovery. Petitioner argued that it had already provided
`
`discovery related to the real party-in-interest issue, and that Patent Owner provided
`
`no more than mere speculation that additional discovery would produce evidence
`
`supporting Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`With consideration given to both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments,
`
`we authorized Patent Owner to file a motion for additional discovery by
`
`December 22, 2014. We advised Patent Owner that the more carefully and
`
`narrowly its motion tailors discovery requests to issues related to real party-in-
`
`interest in the present case, the more likely we would grant Patent Owner’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`
`discovery requests. We also authorized Petitioner to file, by January 5, 2015, an
`
`
`
`opposition to Petitioner’s motion for additional discovery.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file, by December 22, 2014,
`
`a motion for additional discovery related to the issue of real party-in-interest;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file, by
`
`January 5, 2015, an opposition to Petitioner’s motion for additional discovery.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Kiklis
`cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`Katherine Cappaert
`cpdocketcappaert@oblon.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason Angell
`janfell@fawlaw.com
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
