`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