`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC., and COX COMMUNICTIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-006351
`Patent 5,563,883
`____________
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER TO EXPUNGE
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.7(a)
`
`
`
`
`1 Cox Communications, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2015-01796, has
`been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`A conference call was held on December 15, 2015, among counsel for
`Petitioner ARRIS Group, Inc., counsel for Petitioner Cox Communications,
`Inc., counsel for Patent Owner, C-Cation Technologies, LLC, and Judges
`Benoit and Pettigrew. Petitioner requested the call to discuss the handling of
`supplemental evidence in this proceeding. This order summarizes
`statements made during the conference call.
`In response to Patent Owner’s objections to Petitioner’s evidence
`(Paper 22), Petitioner served, but did not file, supplemental evidence in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). More recently, in response to
`Petitioner’s objections to Patent Owner’s evidence (Paper 31), Patent Owner
`served and filed supplemental evidence (Exs. 2029, 2030). On the
`conference call, the parties identified orders issued in other trials in which
`panels addressed the expungement of supplemental evidence that had been
`filed. See Symantec Corp. v. The Trustees of Columbia Univ., Case
`IPR2015-00372 (PTAB Sept. 29, 2015) (Paper 30); Valeo N. Am., Inc. v.
`Magna Elecs., Inc., Case IPR2014-01203 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2015) (Paper 19).
`Evidentiary objections must be served and filed in accordance with
`the time periods set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). A party may respond
`to an evidentiary objection by serving supplemental evidence, as provided in
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). On the call, we explained that Board rules do not
`provide for supplemental evidence to be filed at the time of service because
`the supplemental evidence may obviate an objection. See, e.g., Handi-
`Quilter, Inc. v. Bernina Int’l AG, Case IPR2013-00364, slip op. at 2 (PTAB
`June 12, 2014) (Paper 30). If the party who filed and served the objection is
`not satisfied that the objection has been overcome, the party may preserve
`the objection by filing a Motion to Exclude. Id. Then the party who served
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`the supplemental evidence may file the supplemental evidence with an
`Opposition to the Motion to Exclude. Id.
`On the conference call, we informed the parties that, although some
`panels in other inter partes reviews may have authorized supplemental
`evidence to be filed when served, we do not contemplate authorizing
`supplemental evidence to be filed when it is served in this proceeding.
`Accordingly, the exhibits filed as supplemental evidence will be expunged
`from the record of this proceeding.
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`It is:
` ORDERED Exhibits 2029 and 2030 and Paper 32 (Patent Owner’s
`Updated Exhibit List) will be expunged from the record.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`FOR PETITIONER ARRIS Group, Inc.:
`Andrew R. Sommer
`asommer@winston.com
`
`Jonathan E. Retsky
`jretsky@winston.com
`
`FOR PETITIONER Cox Communications, Inc.:
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Michael J. Turton
`mturton@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Walter E. Hanley
`whanley@kenyon.com
`
`David J. Kaplan
`djkaplan@kenyon.com
`
`David J. Cooperberg
`dcooperberg@kenyon.com
`
`4