`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
`Entered: December 18, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA CORP., VIZIO, INC., and
`HULU, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00198
`Patent 6,009,469
`_______________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`On November 26, 2014, we authorized Petitioner to file a motion to
`
`correct a clerical error pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c). Paper 6. On
`
`December 5, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion to Correct Clerical Error.
`
`Paper 11 (“Mot.”). Our Order authorizing Petitioner’s Motion permitted
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00198
`US 6,009,469
`
`Patent Owner to file a response, if any, by December 12, 2014. Paper 6, 2.
`
`Patent Owner did not file a response.
`
`Petitioner explains that, due to a clerical error, a document was
`
`mistakenly filed as “Exhibit 1002” in the above-referenced case instead of
`
`the document Petitioner intended to file. Mot. 3. Specifically, on
`
`October 31, 2014, Petitioner filed three petitions, including the one at issue
`
`in this proceeding; each petition was intended to be accompanied by a
`
`declaration from Dr. Bruce M. Maggs. Dr. Maggs’s Declaration was given
`
`the same exhibit number—Exhibit 1002—in each of the three cases. Mot. 4.
`
`Rather than upload each of the three declarations into a separate electronic
`
`directory, one for each respective case, Petitioner’s counsels’ legal assistant
`
`mistakenly uploaded the same Dr. Maggs’s Declaration in two of electronic
`
`directors, thus leaving out the third declaration. Id. at 4–5. As a result,
`
`when the documents were filed in the above-referenced case, the declaration
`
`submitted was intended to accompany the petition in IPR2014-00196, rather
`
`than the petition in the instant case. Id. at 5.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel discovered the error on November 4, 2014, and
`
`emailed Patent Owner’s litigation counsel the correct declaration—the
`
`declaration addressing U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469, which is challenged in
`
`this proceeding—the following day. Id. Petitioner’s counsel also sent the
`
`correct declaration to Patent Owner’s litigation counsel and counsel of
`
`record before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office via Federal Express on
`
`November 5, 2014. Id.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(c) provides: “A motion may be filed that seeks to
`
`correct a clerical or typographical mistake in the petition. The grant of such
`
`a motion does not change the filing date of the petition.” Under the
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00198
`US 6,009,469
`
`circumstances presented here, the actions described above constitute a
`
`clerical mistake. Additionally, we find no prejudice to the Patent Owner
`
`requiring an extension of time to file a Preliminary Response because Patent
`
`Owner received the correct version of Exhibit 1002 a mere three business
`
`days after the filing of the petition. Thus, we grant the Motion and the
`
`corrected exhibit will be entered as a replacement for original Exhibit 1002.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error is
`
`GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Exhibit 1002 is expunged
`
`from the record; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s corrected Exhibit 1002,
`
`submitted as an attachment to Petitioner’s Motion, be entered into the record
`
`as Corrected Exhibit 1002.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00198
`US 6,009,469
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Darren Jiron
`darren.jiron@finnegan.com
`
`Rajeev Gupta
`Raj.Gupta@finnegan.com
`
`Stacy Chen
`schen@kvn.com
`
`Clint Conner
`clint@dorsey.com
`
`Kevin O’Brien
`Kevin.O’Brien@bakermckenzie.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Meunier
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`
`Matthew Durell
`mdurell@mintz.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
