UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. RE42,678
`Filing Date: June 15, 2010
`Reissue Date: September 6, 2011
`
`Title: RECONFIGURABLE OPTICAL ADD-DROP MULTIPLEXERS WITH
`SERVO CONTROL AND DYNAMIC SPECTRAL POWER MANAGEMENT
`CAPABILITIES
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-01276
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Authorization to File Motion to Submit Supplemental
`Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. RE42,678
`Filing Date: June 15, 2010
`Reissue Date: September 6, 2011
`
`Title: RECONFIGURABLE OPTICAL ADD-DROP MULTIPLEXERS WITH
`SERVO CONTROL AND DYNAMIC SPECTRAL POWER MANAGEMENT
`CAPABILITIES
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-01276
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Authorization to File Motion to Submit Supplemental
`Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855-2015] (RE42,678)
`Petitioner’s Request for Authorization for Motion to Submit Suppl. Info.
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests authorization under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) to file a motion
`
`to submit supplemental information relevant to a claim for which the trial has been
`
`instituted. Petitioner requests authorization to file a motion to submit the following
`
`supplementation information, the need for which is outlined briefly below:
`
`1. Patent Owner’s (“PO”) interrogatory responses on alleged conception,
`
`diligence and reduction to practice. PO served these responses as part of the
`
`related District Court litigation, Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc., Case Nos. 3:14-cv-03348, -3349, -3350, -3351-EMC (N.D. Cal., 2014)
`
`(the “Related Cases”). This information is relevant to the PO’s expected
`
`attempt to swear behind the currently-asserted prior art in this IPR.
`
`2. Documents referenced in PO’s interrogatory responses regarding priority
`
`dates. This information is also relevant to the issues of alleged conception
`
`and reduction to practice.
`
`3. The parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in the
`
`Related Cases. This information is relevant to the BRIs that the PO indicated
`
`it will pursue in its Preliminary response.
`
`4. PO’s infringement contentions in the Related Cases. This information is
`
`also relevant to the BRIs in this IPR.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855-2015] (RE42,678)
`Petitioner’s Request for Authorization for Motion to Submit Suppl. Info.
`
`
`This request meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) – specifically:
`
`(1) this request is being made within one month of the trial institution date of
`
`February 18, 2015; and (2) the supplemental information is relevant to a claim (i.e.,
`
`claim 1) for which the trial has been instituted.
`
`Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental
`
`information should be granted because:
`
`1. The information that Petitioner proposes to submit, above, was not available
`
`to Petitioner when the Petition was filed.
`
`2. PO’s interrogatory responses were not served until January 16, 2015. Those
`
`responses for the first time revealed PO’s intent to claim an August 31,
`
`2000, priority date for the ‘678 patent. PO contends that this date is earlier
`
`than the currently-asserted prior art. The allegedly-supporting evidence for
`
`this date is uniquely in the possession of PO and prior PO employees. In the
`
`interests of justice, Petitioner must be able to explore and test these
`
`allegations and the evidence behind them.
`
`3. PO produced documents regarding priority date issues after the Petition was
`
`filed. Petitioner requested on February 4, 2015, that PO de-designate (under
`
`the Protective Order in the Related Cases) those documents. PO referenced
`
`those documents in its interrogatory responses regarding alleged conception,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855-2015] (RE42,678)
`Petitioner’s Request for Authorization for Motion to Submit Suppl. Info.
`
`
`diligence and reduction to practice in the Related Cases. Petitioner made its
`
`request in order to allow Petitioner to submit those documents in this
`
`proceeding. As of the filing of this motion, PO still had not provided a
`
`response as to whether it would de-designate the documents.
`
`4. Although PO served its Infringement Contentions prior to the filing of the
`
`Petition, it was not until after the Petition that PO said that it was accusing
`
`devices using non-movable mirrors. This late accusation of such devices
`
`may affect the scope of discovery and claim construction.
`
`5. PO served its claim construction positions well after the Petition was filed.
`
`While Petitioner appreciates that the rules for claim interpretation used in
`
`district court litigation are different than the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification” used for these IPR proceedings,
`
`Petitioner believes that PO’s earlier statements regarding claim construction
`
`will be relevant to these proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requests authorization for Petitioner to file a motion
`
`to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855-2015] (RE42,678)
`Petitioner’s Request for Authorization for Motion to Submit Suppl. Info.
`
`Dated: March 16, 2015
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Wayne O. Stacy
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (720) 566-4000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`/ Matthew J. Leary /
`Matthew J. Leary
`Reg. No. 58,593
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855-2015] (RE42,678)
`Petitioner’s Request for Authorization for Motion to Submit Suppl. Info.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned certifies that on
`
`March 16, 2015, a complete and entire electronic copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Request for Authorization to File Motion to Submit Supplemental
`
`Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) for Inter Partes Review No. 2014-
`
`01276, was served electronically via email in its entirety on the following counsel
`
`of record for Patent Owners:
`
`Robert Greene Sterne (Lead Counsel)
`Jon E. Wright (Backup Counsel)
`Jason D. Eisenberg (Backup Counsel)
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N. W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`E-mails:
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`By: / Matthew J. Leary /
`
`Matthew J. Leary
`
`Reg. No. 58,593
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`1
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
