`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: July 6, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent US 7,202,843
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`On Request to File Reply to Preliminary Response or Motion to Strike
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Board on a request by Petitioner for
`
`authorization to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response or a
`
`Motion to Strike portions of the Preliminary Response. On June 26, 2015,
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843
`
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response, arguing in part that institution of
`
`an inter partes review is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Paper 7. During a
`
`conference call held on July 2, 2015, between counsel for the parties and
`
`Judges Medley and Shaw, Petitioner requested authorization to file a Reply to
`
`the Preliminary Response to address Patent Owner’s arguments, or to file a
`
`Motion to Strike portions of the Preliminary Response. Patent Owner
`
`opposes.
`
`Petitioner seeks to rebut Patent Owner’s arguments in the
`
`Preliminary Response, including arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`Section 325(d) states, in relevant part, that “[i]n determining whether to
`
`institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31,
`
`the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or
`
`request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” Thus, the Director has discretion
`
`to consider whether the petition includes the same or substantially the same
`
`prior art or arguments as previously were presented to the Office.
`
`Generally, a petitioner is not authorized to file a reply to a patent
`
`owner preliminary response. Based on the record before us, we determine
`
`that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that we should deviate
`
`from the normal procedure for this proceeding. Upon consideration of the
`
`positions of the parties, Petitioner is not authorized at this time to file a
`
`Reply or to file a Motion to Strike portions of the Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a Reply to the
`
`Preliminary Response or a Motion to Strike is denied.
`
`ORDERED that the parties will file a copy of the transcript of the
`
`July 2, 2015 phone call in due course.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Robert Pluta
`Amanda Streff
`William Barrow
`Mayer Brown LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Wayne Heldge
`Michael Casey
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`whelge@dbjg.com
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
