`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
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
