`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 Paper 30; IPR2015-00123 Paper 30
`IPR2015-00124 Paper 29; IPR2015-00125 Paper 28;
`IPR2015-00133 Paper 26; IPR2015-00137 Paper 25
`
`
`
`Entered: March 6, 2015
`
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASKELADDEN LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEAN I. MCGHIE and BRIAN BUCHHEIT,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Chang, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`1 This Decision addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases.
`We exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Real Party-in-Interest and Vacating Filing Date
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1) and 42.106(b)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Askeladden LLC (“Askeladden”) filed a Petition requesting
`
`an inter partes review in each of the above-identified proceedings. Paper 2,2
`
`“Pet.” The Petitions identify Askeladden as the sole real party-in-interest to
`
`these proceedings. Pet. 1.
`
`In response, Sean McGhie and Brian Buchheit (“Patent Owner”) filed
`
`a Preliminary Response in each proceeding at issue. Paper 10, “Prelim.
`
`Resp.” Patent Owner asserts that The Clearing House Payments Company
`
`LLC (“PayCo”) also is a real party-in-interest. Id. at 54.
`
`Subsequently, we authorized Askeladden to file a reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response for the sole purpose of addressing the real
`
`party-in-interest issue. Paper 13. Pursuant to our authorization, Askeladden
`
`filed a Reply3 (“RPI Reply”4) and supporting evidence, including a
`
`
`
`2 Citations are to IPR2015-00133.
`3 The Reply was time-stamped February 24, 2015, 12:02 a.m. ET, and, thus,
`was filed untimely. Patent Owner does not object to the entry of the late
`filing. Upon consideration, we determined, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.5(c)(3), to excuse the late filing.
`4 Askeladden filed two versions of its Reply—a confidential version
`(Paper 14) and a public redacted version (Paper 15).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Declaration of Mr. Sean Reilly (Ex. 15315). In addition, in response to our
`
`request for relevant portions of Askeladden’s Operating Guidelines, which
`
`are referenced in Mr. Reilly’s Declaration (Ex. 1531 ¶ 11), Askeladden filed
`
`a redacted confidential version of Askeladden’s Limited Liability Company
`
`Agreement (Ex. 1533, “LLC Agreement”), which contains Askeladden’s
`
`Operating Guidelines.
`
`We have considered the parties’ contentions and evidence in the
`
`present record. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that
`
`Askeladden also should have identified PayCo as a real party-in-interest in
`
`the Petitions, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.106(b), we, hereby, vacate the previously-accorded filing date of each
`
`Petition, and provide Askeladden an opportunity to correct the Petitions in
`
`accordance with this Order.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Factual Background
`
`Askeladden is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PayCo. Ex. 1531 ¶ 6.
`
` Ex. 1533, 1. In short, PayCo is the parent
`
`
`
`company
`
` of Askeladden.
`
`
`
`5 Askeladden filed both the confidential version and public redacted versions
`of Mr. Reilly’s Declaration, as Exhibits 1531.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Committee appear to be current executive officers of PayCo. Ex. 2029.
`
` the members of Askeladden’s Executive
`
`
`
`PayCo purportedly is a banking industry group representing more than
`
`twenty financial institutions (“PayCo’s member banks”). Ex. 2027, 1.
`
`PayCo formed Askeladden to implement the Patent Quality Initiative
`
`(“PQI”), which is said to improve the quality of patents that affect the
`
`financial services industry. Ex. 1531 ¶ 7; Ex. 1533, 8. PQI is the product of
`
`thought leadership provided by PayCo. Ex. 2029, 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`The Parties’ Contentions
`
`Notwithstanding the identification of Askeladden as the sole real
`
`party-in-interest in each Petition (Pet. 1), Patent Owner asserts that PayCo
`
`also is a real party-in-interest. Prelim. Resp. 54. In its Preliminary
`
`Response, Patent Owner argues that “the boundary between Askeladden and
`
`the Clearing House has been a legal fiction based on the evidence available.”
`
`Id. at 55. As support, Patent Owner submitted two press releases
`
`(Exs. 2033, 2034), an article from iam-magazine (Ex. 2027), and several
`
`webpages6 from the websites of Askeladden and PayCo (Exs. 2028–2032).
`
`In its Reply, Askeladden counters that it is the sole real party-in-
`
`interest because no other entity funds or controls the above-identified inter
`
`partes reviews. RPI Reply 1. In particular, Askeladden alleges that PayCo
`
`is not a real party-in-interest, as PayCo has not funded these proceedings.
`
`Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1531 ¶ 16). Askeladden also contends that it,
`
`independently and, in its sole discretion, identifies and selects the involved
`
`patents, and directs all aspects of these proceedings. Id. at 1–5 (citing
`
`Ex. 1531 ¶¶ 11–12, 18). Askeladden further maintains that Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption that distinct legal
`
`entities operate independently. Id. at 6–11. Askeladden argues that Patent
`
`Owner improperly seeks an advisory opinion, as Patent Owner has not sued
`
`
`
`6 http://www.patentqualityinitiative.com and
`https://www.theclearinghouse.org.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`PayCo, Askeladden, or any other entity for infringement of the involved
`
`patents. Id. at 12–13.
`
`
`
`Principles of Law
`
`Section 312(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that a
`
`petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 may be considered
`
`only if, among other things, the petition identifies all real parties-in-interest.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The identification of all real parties-in-interest assists
`
`the Board in identifying potential conflicts of interest, and assures proper
`
`application of the statutory estoppel provisions, protecting patent owners
`
`from harassment via successive petitions by the same parties, and assuring
`
`that all issues are raised and considered promptly. Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial
`
`Practice Guide”).
`
`Whether a non-identified party is a real party-in-interest to a
`
`proceeding is a highly fact-dependent question. Id. (citing Taylor v.
`
`Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)). “Courts invoke the terms ‘real party-in-
`
`interest’ and ‘privy’ to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to
`
`justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion.” Id.
`
`Taylor lists six categories that create an exception to the common law rule
`
`that normally forbids non-party preclusion in litigation. Taylor, 553 U.S. at
`
`893–95. “A common consideration is whether the non-party exercised or
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.”7
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759 (citing Taylor, 553 U.S. at
`
`895). The concept of control generally means that “it should be enough the
`
`nonparty has the actual measure of control or opportunity to control that
`
`might reasonably be expected between two formal coparties.” Id.
`
`Factors for determining actual control or the opportunity to control
`
`include existence of a financially controlling interest in the petitioner. Rules
`
`of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial
`
`Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012). Additional relevant factors include:
`
`the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship
`
`to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in
`
`the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760.
`
`There is no bright-line test for determining the necessary quantity or
`
`degree of participation in the proceeding to qualify as a real party-in-interest.
`
`Id. at 48,759 (citing Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759
`
`(1st Cir. 1994)). A non-identified party’s participation may be overt or
`
`covert, and the evidence may be circumstantial, but the evidence, as a whole,
`
`must show that the non-identified party possessed effective control from a
`
`
`
`7 Another category discussed in Taylor that might be relevant here is a
`special statutory scheme that forecloses successive attacks by third parties,
`and otherwise is consistent with due process. Taylor, 553 U.S. at 895.
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`practical standpoint. Gonzalez, 27 F.3d at 759. This inquiry is not based on
`
`isolated facts, but rather must consider the totality of the circumstances. Id.
`
`Burden
`
`In general, the identification of real parties-in-interest submitted in a
`
`petition is presumed to be correct. Changes to Implement Inter partes
`
`Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional
`
`Program for Covered Business Method Patents; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,680, 48,695 (Aug. 14, 2012). This presumption is rebuttable by an
`
`opposing party who provides sufficient evidence that reasonably brings into
`
`question the accuracy of a petitioner’s identification of real parties-in-
`
`interest.8 As noted in our previous Order, the petitioner is more likely to be
`
`in possession of, or have access to, evidence that is relevant to the issue than
`
`is a patent owner. Paper 13, 2. In short, the ultimate burden of proof on the
`
`issue lies with the petitioner. See, e.g., Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp., Case
`
`IPR2014-01254, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) (Paper 35).
`
`
`
`8 With a few exceptions not pertinent in this proceeding, the Federal Rules
`of Evidence apply to an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a). “[T]he
`party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing
`evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of
`persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.” Fed. R.
`Evid. 301 (emphasis added).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Analysis
`
`Upon reviewing the evidence presented by Askeladden and Patent
`
`Owner, we are not persuaded that Askeladden has met its burden of
`
`identifying all real parties-in-interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`Askeladden was given an opportunity to resolve the uncertainty as to the
`
`boundary lines between PayCo and Askeladden with respect to whether
`
`PayCo exercised or could have exercised control over these proceedings.
`
`Paper 13. Askeladden argued unpersuasively that PayCo is merely a parent
`
`company
`
` RPI Reply 3–11. Rather, upon
`
`consideration of the totality of the circumstances, we find that the evidence
`
`before us, as a whole, shows that the boundary lines are blurred sufficiently
`
`between PayCo and Askeladden with respect to the above-identified inter
`
`partes reviews, such that PayCo has the opportunity to control Askeladden’s
`
`participation in these proceedings. See, e.g., Zerto, Case IPR2014-01254,
`
`Paper 35 slip op. at 6–7; GEA Process Eng’g, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2014-00041, slip op. at 19–21 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2014) (Paper 140);
`
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00606, slip
`
`op. at 9–13 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 13). We address below the
`
`arguments presented by Askeladden in turn.
`
`1. Arguments concerning funding and control
`
`In its Reply, Askeladden argues that “PayCo and its member banks do
`
`not control or directly fund” the specific proceedings before us. RPI Reply
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`3–5. Askeladden also alleges that “neither PayCo nor its member banks
`
`directed or controlled the selection of the patents” at issue. Id. at 5.
`
`As support, Askeladden directs our attention to the Declaration of
`
`Mr. Reilly, who is Askeladden’s General Counsel and PayCo’s Senior Vice
`
`President and Associate General Counsel. Ex. 1531.
`
`Askeladden, however, has not provided sufficient explanation or
`
`credible evidence to resolve the uncertainty with respect to whether PayCo
`
`or Askeladden provided the funding for the filing fees and legal expenses
`
`associated with the above-identified proceedings. Mr. Reilly testifies
`
`generally that Askeladden maintains separate books and financial records
`
`from PayCo. Ex. 1531 ¶ 10. Yet, no specific financial records have been
`
`submitted to establish that Askeladden, alone, funded these proceedings
`
`(e.g., the invoices for the expenses related to the inter partes reviews).
`
`In fact, Mr. Reilly testifies that
`
`
`
`. Id. ¶ 16. According to the LLC Agreement,
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1533, 10. Based on the evidence before us, we observe that Askeladden
`
`obtains its funding completely from PayCo, including the expenses
`
`associated with the proceedings before us. Askeladden has not proffered
`
`specific and credible evidence to show otherwise.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Mr. Reilly further testifies
`
`
`
` and that Askeladden is
`
`solely responsible for selecting the involved patents for review. Ex. 1531
`
`¶¶ 11, 16. The evidence, as a whole, nevertheless, does not support that
`
`Askeladden has independent control over
`
`
`
` the selection of the specific patents for review.
`
`Indeed, all members of Askeladden’s Executive Committee appear to
`
`be the current executive officers of PayCo. Ex. 2029.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Notwithstanding Askeladden’s assertions of corporate
`
`formalities (RPI Reply 6–12), the evidence before us, as a whole, indicates
`
`that PayCo is an involved and controlling parent company, providing little,
`
`if any, opportunity for Askeladden to represent other
`
` interests.
`
`In sum, PayCo and Askeladden are effectively a single entity with respect to
`
`the proceedings before us.
`
`PayCo formed Askeladden to implement PQI—an initiative
`
`developed by PayCo for challenging certain financial services patents in
`
`administrative trial proceedings, including inter partes reviews. Id. at 1–2,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`8–9; Ex. 2029, 1. PayCo has played a predominant role in the development
`
`and implementation of PQI. Ex. 1533, 1–2, 8–9; Ex. 2029,1
`
`
`
` The evidence, as a whole, shows that PayCo has
`
`
`
`kept a tight rein over Askeladden, and the interests of Askeladden and
`
`PayCo are aligned closely insofar as how Askeladden advances PayCo’s
`
`initiative in challenging certain financial services patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` we are not persuaded that
`
`Askeladden has the sole discretion of selecting the involved patents.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the evidence, as a
`
`whole, sufficiently shows that PayCo has the opportunity to control
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Askeladden’s participation in these proceedings, and, thus, PayCo is a real
`
`party-in-interest to the proceedings before us.
`
`2. Trade association argument
`
`In its Reply, Askeladden also directs our attention to Unified Patents
`
`Inc. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC, Case IPR2014-01252 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 12, 2015) (Paper 37), to support its argument that PayCo is not a real
`
`party-in-interest to these proceedings. RPI Reply 3–5. Askeladden’s
`
`argument, however, is predicated on the improper premise that the holding
`
`of Unified Patents requires a showing that a non-party paid, directed, or
`
`suggested to the petitioner to challenge the specific patent, before we can
`
`treat the non-party as a real party-in-interest. Askeladden narrowly focuses
`
`on the discussion in Unified Patents as to why the holding in RPX Corp. v.
`
`VirnetX Inc., Case IPR2014-00171 (PTAB July 14, 2014) (Paper 49), does
`
`not apply to the particular facts in Unified Patents.
`
`Although a non-party, as in Unified Patents, does not become a real
`
`party-in-interest based solely on its membership in the trade association,
`
`“slight alterations in the facts, as well as consideration of other facts, might
`
`result in a different conclusion.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 48,760. Unlike the facts in Unified Patents, PayCo here is not merely a
`
`member of a trade association. Rather, as discussed above, PayCo is an
`
`involved and controlling parent company,
`
`
`
`boundary between PayCo and Askeladden with respect to these proceedings,
`13
`
`. Furthermore, there is no discernible
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`thus providing PayCo sufficient opportunity to control Askeladden’s
`
`participation in these proceedings.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Askeladden’s
`
`argument that the holding of Unified Patents applies here in these
`
`proceedings.
`
`3. Seeking advisory opinion argument
`
`Askeladden argues that Patent Owner improperly seeks an advisory
`
`opinion on the possible future application of the estoppel provision under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e). RPI Reply 12–13. To support its argument, Askeladden
`
`asserts that the real party-in-interest issue “is not dispositive of any issue in
`
`these proceedings,” as Patent Owner has not sued any entity for
`
`infringement of the involved patents. Id. at 12–13.
`
`Askeladden’s argument is of no moment here, as 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1) and 42.104 require each Petition to
`
`identify all real parties-in-interest. As discussed above, Patent Owner
`
`properly presents arguments and sufficient evidence, in its Preliminary
`
`Response, to bring reasonably into question the accuracy of Askeladden’s
`
`identification of real party-in-interest, assuring that all issues are raised and
`
`considered promptly.
`
`Askeladden also implies that the failure to comply with the real
`
`parties-in-interest requirement does not have meaningful consequences, as
`
`an “addition of a real party-in-interest here would merely change the filing
`
`date of the Petition” and delay the decision on institution. Id. at 13. Such a
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`view contradicts the statute and rules, as well as undermines our ability “to
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Askeladden should correct its Petitions at this early
`
`stage of the proceedings to minimize burden on the Board and prevent
`
`unnecessary delay. Paper 13, 5.
`
`4. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Askeladden fails to meet
`
`its burden that Askeladden is the sole real party-in-interest to the above-
`
`identified inter partes reviews, and that Askeladden also should have
`
`identified PayCo as a real party-in-interest.
`
`III. FILING DATE VACATED
`
`For the reasons discussed above, the Petitions do not identify all real
`
`parties-in-interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.8(b)(1) and 42.104, and, as such, the Petitions are incomplete under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(b). The previously-accorded filing date for each of the
`
`Petitions is hereby vacated.
`
`We observe, on this record, that Patent Owner has not served PayCo,
`
`Askeladden, or any other entity with a complaint alleging infringement of
`
`the involved patents. See generally, Prelim. Resp. 54–60; Pet. 1; RPI
`
`Reply 13. Therefore, the one-year statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`does not apply to these proceedings. At this juncture, we have yet to decide
`
`whether or not to institute a review in these proceedings.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Under these circumstances, we hereby provide Askeladden an
`
`opportunity to correct the identification of all real parties-in-interest under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), within 5 business days from the entry of the instant
`
`Order, to avoid dismissal of the Petitions.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is:
`
`ORDERED that, within 5 business days from the entry of this Order,
`
`Askeladden should update its Mandatory Notice pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.8(b)(1) to identify all real parties-in-interest, including The Clearing
`
`House Payments Company LLC, in each of the above-identified
`
`proceedings; the updated Mandatory Notices filed in accordance with this
`
`Order to include the identification of all real parties-in-interest will be
`
`considered corrections to the Petitions; Askeladden is not required to
`
`resubmit the information contained in the original Petition filings; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the accorded filing date for each Petition
`
`filed in these proceedings is vacated; a new filing date for the Petitions will
`
`be accorded upon the filing of the updated Mandatory Notices that include
`
`the identification of all real parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Robert H. Fischer
`Frank A. DeLucia
`askeladdenIPR@fchs.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian Buchheit
`bbucheit@gmail.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`