`
` Entered: April 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`On April 8, 2015, an initial conference call was held between counsel for the
`respective parties and Judges Medley and Deshpande. Petitioner requested
`authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information pertaining to
`Patent Owner’s objection to the public availability of one of the asserted prior art
`references in this case, Takaoka.1 Paper 12. We authorized Petitioner’s request to
`file a motion to submit supplemental information and further authorized Patent
`Owner to submit an opposition to Petitioner’s motion. Id.
`On April 15, 2015, Petitioner submitted a Motion to Submit Supplemental
`Information. Paper 13. The content of the supplemental information is the
`declaration testimony of a Patent and Trademark Resource Center Librarian at the
`Minneapolis Central Library as to the public availability of Takaoka. Ex. 1127. In
`the Motion, Petitioner provides an example of a Board decision that permits
`Petitioner to file supplementing evidence of publication after having demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on at least one challenged claim. See Valeo
`North America, Inc. v. Magna Electronics, Inc., IPR2014-01208, Paper 23 (PTAB
`Mar. 9, 2015). On April 22, 2015, Patent Owner indicated that it does not oppose
`Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information. Paper 14, 1.
`Although the Valeo decision is not precedential, we find it instructive and on
`point to the facts of this case. Both parties appear to agree. Based on the record
`before us, we grant Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Evidence (Ex.
`1127) under 37 C.F.R. 42.123(a)(2).
`
`
`1 T. Takaoka et al., A High-Expansion Ratio Gasoline Engine for the Toyota
`Hybrid System, Toyota Technical Review, vol. 47, no. 2 (Apr. 1998) (Ex. 1107).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information is
`granted.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`Frank A. Angileri
`Michael D. Cushion
`Andrew B. Turner
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0110IPR2@brookskushman.com
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`John E. Nemazi
`John P. Rondini
`Erin K. Bowles
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0104IPR3@brookskushman.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`DENTONS US LLP
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`riffe@fr.com
`IPR36351-0012IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`4
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
