`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS II LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`IPR2015-00990 AND IPR2015-010931
`Patent No. 7,056,886
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`1 Per the Board’s Order authorizing this opposition (see, e.g., IPR2015-00990,
`
`Paper 8), the word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in
`
`the heading.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Legal Standards ................................................................................................. 2
`A. Additional Discovery .................................................................................. 2
`
`B. Patent Owner Failed to Rebut the Presumption that Petitioner’s
`Real Party-In-Interest Statement is Correct ...................................................... 3
`
`III. Patent Owner’s Requests Are Not In the Interests of Justice. .......................... 4
`A. Patent Owner’s Allegations are Based on Speculation. ............................. 5
`
`1. Patent Owner Improperly Focuses on Privity Rather than Real-
`Party-In-Interest Issues. .............................................................................. 5
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Notion that Every Funder and Manager is a
`Real Party-in-Interest is Baseless. .............................................................. 8
`
`B. Patent Owner Has the Ability to Generate the Requested
`Information Without the Need for Discovery. ................................................ 11
`
`C. The Instructions For Responding to Discovery Are Far From
`“Easily Understandable.” ................................................................................ 11
`
`D. Patent Owner’s Discovery Requests are Significantly Overbroad
`and Burdensome. ............................................................................................. 12
`
`IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Burnet v. Clark,
`287 U.S. 410 (1932) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`United States v. Bestfoods,
`524 U.S. 51 (1998) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Int’l Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd.,
`220 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................. 4
`
`Harper v. Del. Valley Broadcasters, Inc.,
`743 F. Supp. 1076, 1089 (D. Del. 1990) ................................................................... 9
`
`Aruze Gaming Macau, Ltd. v. MGT Gaming, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01288, Paper 13 (Feb. 20, 2015) ............................................................... 6
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (Mar. 5, 2013) ........................................... 3, 5, 10-12, 14
`
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., LTD.,
`IPR2013-00028, Paper 31 (May 21, 2013) ................................................... 3, 10-11
`
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01235, Paper 12 (Dec. 22, 2014) ............................................................... 6
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00369, Paper 36 (Feb. 5, 2014) ....................................................... 2-3, 13
`
`Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00042, Paper 24 (April 25, 2013) ...................................................... 12, 14
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc,
`IPR2014-01497, Paper 7 (March 19, 2015) .............................................................. 5
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC,
` IPR2014-01252, Paper 39 (Feb. 17, 2015) .............................................................. 4
`
`Wavemarket Inc. v. Locationet Sys. Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00199, Paper 34 (Aug. 11, 2014) ................................................ 5, 6, 7, 12
`
`Statutes
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 3
`
` Del. C. § 17-301–306 .............................................................................................. 9
`
` 6
`
` 6
`
` Del. C. § 17-401–407 ............................................................................................ 10
`
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Legislative History
`
`H. Rep. No. 112-98 at 45-48 (2011) ......................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The breadth and depth of the Patent Owner’ requested discovery is well
`
`beyond that ever permitted by the Board. Granting Patent Owner’s Motion would
`
`set a precedent for future proceedings that would harass petitioners, unduly burden
`
`the Board, and frustrate the intent of Congress to provide an expedited and
`
`streamlined validity review. Additionally, Patent Owner has not met its burden to
`
`show it is in possession of more than mere speculation that unnamed entities have
`
`any control, or a right to control, these proceedings.
`
`Patent Owner suggests that virtually every shareholder and manager in a
`
`distinct legal business entity is a real party-in-interest, and seeks discovery that
`
`exceeds even these vast bounds. Patent Owner’s own real party-in-interest
`
`designations, like those of virtually every other corporate participant in the inter
`
`partes review process, correctly do not paint with so broad a brush.
`
`Patent Owner provides no basis for finding any exception to the general rule
`
`that corporate distinctions should be respected. Nor need Petitioner apologize for
`
`using legally-recognized structures for their intended purposes. Petitioner
`
`identified eight entities and two individuals and fully recognizes that challenging
`
`the RPI is page one of the Patent Owner response play book. This is not a case
`
`where Petitioner would have benefited from under-identifying the real parties-in-
`
`interest, for example, because an unnamed entity may be subject to estoppel. The
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s brief refers to many entities, but fails to demonstrate why
`
`discovery is likely to show that even one unnamed entity is a real party-in-interest.
`
`The requests should be denied as futile and harassing.
`
`Patent Owner utterly disregards the Board’s caution by lodging expansive
`
`requests untethered to any showing that any specific entity will likely be shown to
`
`be a real party-in-interest if the discovery is granted. The first document request
`
`seeks documents identifying nineteen categories of individuals. The second
`
`request calls for eight categories of agreements. These requests and the other
`
`requests would be considered overbroad and harassing even in the context of
`
`district court litigation and they should be denied.
`
`Patent Owner also failed to identify specifically in its motion why the
`
`discovery of each item is in the interests of justice. Merely expanding upon
`
`information already available is not in the interests of justice. Moreover, Patent
`
`Owner’s articulated basis appears misdirected at the issue of privity, not real party-
`
`in-interest. Patent Owner’s fishing expedition should be denied.
`
`II. Legal Standards
`
`A. Additional Discovery
`
`Discovery in an inter partes review is designed to be less burdensome than
`
`
`
`what is normally available in district court patent litigation, as Congress intended
`
`inter partes review to be a quick and cost effective alternative to litigation. Palo
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., IPR2013-00369, Paper 36, 2-3 (Feb.
`
`5, 2014), (citing H. Rep. No. 112-98 at 45-48 (2011)). Limited discovery lowers
`
`the cost, minimizes the complexity, and shortens the period required for dispute
`
`resolution. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper
`
`26, 6–7 (Mar. 5, 2013). Due to Congress’s intent and time deadlines imposed on
`
`the Board, the Board is “conservative in granting leave for additional discovery.”
`
`Palo Alto, at 2-3.
`
`Patent Owner, as the movant, bears the burden of demonstrating that
`
`additional discovery is “in the interest of justice.” See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c),
`
`42.51(b)(2). Each of the relevant factors important to determining whether a
`
`discovery request is in the interest of justice are analyzed in Section III below. See
`
`Garmin, 6–7. To meet its burden, Patent Owner must explain with specificity the
`
`discovery requested and why the items corresponding to each request are in the
`
`interests of justice. Palo Alto at 3.
`
`B. Patent Owner Failed to Rebut the Presumption that Petitioner’s
`Real Party-In-Interest Statement is Correct
`
`When a representation of the real parties-in-interest is made, there is a
`
`
`
`rebuttable presumption that it is correct. Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy
`
`Laboratory Co., LTD., IPR2013-00028, Paper 31, 4 (May 21, 2013). Patent
`
`Owner failed to rebut that presumption.
`
`Discovery should also be denied unless the movant specifically articulates
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`why a particular person or entity should have been named as a real party-in-
`
`interest. Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`01252, Paper 39, 5 (Feb. 17, 2015) (denying additional discovery because, in part,
`
`“Patent Owner has not, for example, sought information showing that particular
`
`members paid or reimbursed Petitioner for expenses associated with the present
`
`case (aside from having paid their general subscription fees).”) (emphasis added);
`
`see also TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc, IPR2014-01497, Paper 7
`
`(March 19, 2015) (“The generic references to the existence of a parent/subsidiary
`
`business relationship in SEC documents and the statements in press releases on
`
`which Patent Owner relies do not establish or suggest that the parent funds, directs,
`
`or controls the IPR petition or proceeding, or that the subsidiary is a proxy for the
`
`parent.”). Patent Owner has failed to articulate why any additional person or entity
`
`should have been named as a real party-in-interest. It is not enough that Petitioner
`
`exists primarily for bringing this inter partes review. Unified, at 3 (rejecting patent
`
`owner’s arguments based on the fact that “Petitioner exists for the sole purpose of
`
`challenging patents.”).
`
`III. Patent Owner’s Requests Are Not In the Interests of Justice.
`
`Patent Owner fails to establish that its discovery is in the interests of justice.
`
`The Garmin factors serve as a clear roadmap establishing Patent Owner’s
`
`additional discovery requests are not in the interests of justice. However, Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Owner merely pays lip service to the Garmin factors. (Paper 9 at 14-15.)
`
`A. Patent Owner’s Allegations are Based on Speculation.
`
`The first Garmin factor requires the requesting party to show more than a
`
`mere possibility or allegation of finding something useful. Garmin, at 6. The
`
`requesting party should already be in possession of information “tending to show
`
`beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered.” Id. Within
`
`the context of the first factor, “useful” means favorable in substantive value to a
`
`contention of the party moving for discovery, which is in “sharp contrast” to
`
`merely relevant or admissible evidence. Id.
`
`Patent Owner has not met this threshold. Specifically, Patent Owner has not
`
`shown that it has any information that ties any unnamed entity or person to control
`
`of this particular proceeding. This showing is essential because, in deciding
`
`whether a non-party is a real party-in-interest, it is important to determine whether
`
`a non-party exercises, or could have exercised, control over a party’s participation
`
`in the proceeding. Wavemarket Inc. v. Locationet Sys. Ltd., IPR2014-00199, Paper
`
`34, 5 (Aug. 11, 2014). Instead, Patent Owner’s allegations are numerous in terms
`
`of the number of entities mentioned, but sparse in terms of its specifics regarding
`
`control as to any one entity.
`
`1. Patent Owner Improperly Focuses on Privity Rather than Real-
`Party-In-Interest Issues.
`
`Patent Owner has not established beyond a mere possibility that its
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`discovery will obtain anything useful specifically relating to the real party-in-
`
`interest issue. Rather, each of Patent Owner’s arguments focuses on the
`
`relationship between parties—an issue related to privity—rather than the
`
`relationship between an alleged unnamed party to this proceeding. Aruze Gaming
`
`Macau, Ltd. v. MGT Gaming, Inc., IPR2014-01288, Paper 13, 11 (Feb. 20, 2015)
`
`(“RPI is the relationship between a party and a proceeding; RPI does not describe
`
`the relationship between parties.”). Privity is not relevant to the assessment of the
`
`real party-in-interest issue. Id. (citing Int’l Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research,
`
`Ltd., 220 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) (“In contrast to the RPI inquiry . . . the
`
`privity inquiry focuses on the relationship between parties.”) Rather, “the notion
`
`of ‘privity’ is more expansive and encompasses parties that do not necessarily need
`
`to be identified in the Petition as a real party-in-interest.” Nestle USA, Inc. v.
`
`Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2014-01235, Paper 12, 8 (Dec. 22, 2014). For this reason,
`
`where the requested additional discovery is focused on privity rather than real-
`
`party-in-interest issues—as here—the motion should be denied. Wavemarket at 5.
`
`For example, Patent Owner’s requests for production (Ex. 2001) request
`
`documents regarding the relationships between the parties, not any relationship to
`
`this proceeding. The deposition topics (Ex. 2003) and interrogatories (Ex. 2002)
`
`similarly request information related to, and largely duplicative of, what is
`
`requested in the document requests. Patent Owner’s additional discovery should
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`be denied as it has not established beyond mere speculation that it would be useful.
`
`Wavemarket at 5 (“However, since the notion of privity is more expansive than
`
`real party-in-interest, Patent Owner’s evidence is not sufficient with respect to the
`
`issue of real party-in-interest.”).
`
`
`
`In addition, Patent Owner identifies a myriad of individuals and entities that
`
`might have some relationship to a listed real party-in-interest, but fails to
`
`adequately address even one party’s relationship to this proceeding. (Paper 9 at 5-
`
`9.) For instance, Patent Owner’s generic discussion of feeder funds is limited
`
`entirely to the interaction of the entities between one another. (Id. at 5-7.)
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner’s general discussion of managers describes only the
`
`relationship between those individuals and the respective businesses. (Id. at 7-9.)
`
`The mere fact that a business has managers and receives outside funding does not
`
`establish that anyone providing funding to the business becomes, ipso facto, a real
`
`party-in-interest for an inter partes review proceeding. See Wavemarket, at 5
`
`(“control” of a proceeding is an important consideration).
`
`Patent Owner’s allegations imply that corporate distinctions should be
`
`disregarded. It is hornbook law, however, that corporate distinctions should almost
`
`always be recognized even between a parent and subsidiary which share directors
`
`or executive officers. United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 65 (1998). “Only
`
`under exceptional circumstances – not present here – can the difference” between a
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`corporation and its stockholders “be disregarded.” Burnet v. Clark, 287 U.S. 410,
`
`415 (1932).
`
`Patent Owner provides no evidence that any “Unnamed Funders” have any
`
`relationship with this proceeding. Instead, Patent Owner speculates about what
`
`possibly could be happening—including general statements such as “hedge fund
`
`investors often can negotiate their individual rights as conditions to their
`
`investments” and “bigger investors often negotiate better terms than others.”
`
`(Paper 9 at 3.) These irrelevant generalities do not establish even a possibility that
`
`Patent Owner would discover anything useful regarding the real-party-interest
`
`issue by obtaining discovery into “Unnamed Funders.”
`
`Notably, Patent Owner makes no arguments at all specific to identified RPIs
`
`Erich Spangenberg, nXnP or IPNav. As such, Patent Owner has not even
`
`attempted to establish that it will discover any useful information from those
`
`entities. And none of its requests are based on anything more than speculation.
`
`For that reason alone they should be denied.
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Notion that Every Funder and Manager is a
`Real Party-in-Interest is Baseless.
`
`Patent Owner proposes that every funder and manager of a business should
`
`be listed as a real party-in-interest. (Paper 9 at 8-9.) Such a standard is
`
`implausible and unsupported. The Petitioner and the funds listed as real parties-in-
`
`interest here are business entities organized under Delaware Law, just like NPS
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Pharmaceuticals. Suggesting that each of the shareholders and managers of a
`
`business entity should be a real party-in-interest improperly stretches the standard
`
`for a real party-in-interest beyond the bounds of logic.
`
`Patent Owner’s suggestion that limited partners should be listed as real
`
`parties-in-interest is also unsupported. (Paper 9 at 5, 9.) A limited partner is
`
`entitled to protections by law that are similar to that of a shareholder. 6 Del. C. §
`
`17-301–306. Moreover, limited partners, by definition, do not have the right to
`
`control the business decisions of the business entity. Harper v. Del. Valley
`
`Broadcasters, Inc., 743 F. Supp. 1076, 1089 (D. Del. 1990) (“Inability to control
`
`the business of the Partnership combined with limited liability for the obligations
`
`incurred in the business of the Partnership are precisely the attributes of a limited
`
`partner.”) (citing 6 Del. C. §§ 17-301-306). There is no basis for Patent Owner’s
`
`contention that it would discover useful information with regard to the limited
`
`partners.
`
`Patent Owner further suggests that a Chief Operating Officer, Chief
`
`Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, and even the General Counsel should
`
`be listed as real parties-in-interest. (Paper 9 at 9.) This argument too presents an
`
`untenable standard—one that NPS Pharmaceuticals and its parent company, Shire
`
`PLC, do not follow themselves. In its Mandatory Notices, NPS Pharmaceuticals
`
`has failed to list any of its managers or directors as real parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`(IPR2015-00990, Paper 5; see also Shire Petition, at 1 (IPR2015-00990, Ex. 1031;
`
`IPR2015-01093, Ex. 1032); Shire Appeal Brief, at i (IPR2015-00990, Ex. 1032;
`
`IPR2015-01093, Ex. 1033).
`
`Patent Owner’s disclosures are inconsistent with its argument, because it
`
`knows full well that the acts of officers of a business are those of the business
`
`entity. The same logic applies to general partners acting on behalf of the business.
`
`6 Del. C. § 17-401—407. Patent Owner seeks to cast a net wider than any standard
`
`for real parties-in-interest in any case cited by either party.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that mere financial contributions to a business
`
`justify discovery are likewise flawed. Providing a financial contribution to a
`
`business does not make the contributor a real party-in-interest with regard to the
`
`activities of the business, as Patent Owner suggests, any more than being a
`
`shareholder of a public corporation would make one a real party-in-interest. Under
`
`Patent Owner’s standard, every shareholder or even a bank lender of a corporation
`
`or partnership would have to be listed as a real party-in-interest. Further, Patent
`
`Owner has provided no evidence that establishes more than a mere possibility that
`
`any unlisted financial contributor has had any relationship to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s requests should be denied for all the above reasons. It has
`
`failed to present any evidence that any party not listed as a real party-in-interest
`
`had any participation in this proceeding—much less control over it. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Innolux, at 4 (“SEL has not shown that just because Innolux’ s backup counsel, Mr.
`
`Cordrey, represents some of the codefendants in the related litigation that that
`
`means the co-defendants have exercised control of this proceeding in any
`
`manner.”) For all of these reasons, the first Garmin factor weighs heavily against
`
`granting the request for additional discovery.
`
`B. Patent Owner Has the Ability to Generate the Requested
`Information Without the Need for Discovery.
`
`The third Garmin factor relates to the requester’s ability to generate
`
`equivalent information by other means. Garmin at 13. Patent Owner can discover
`
`and has discovered much of the information that it now seeks. Patent Owner’s first
`
`interrogatory requests, in part, the name of each Named Funder, even though it
`
`apparently knows them. (Ex. 2002; 2001.) As admitted in Patent Owner’s motion,
`
`“Discovery is, therefore, sought to expand upon and corroborate the public
`
`documents that NPS has already carefully examined.” (Paper 9 at 2.) The Patent
`
`Owner obviously put little effort into tailoring its requests to exclude information it
`
`already has. Thus, the third Garmin factor also weighs against granting the
`
`additional discovery.
`
`C. The Instructions For Responding to Discovery Are Far From
`“Easily Understandable.”
`
`The fourth Garmin factor relates to whether the instructions and questions
`
`are easily understandable. Garmin, at 6-7. Patent Owner’s instructions and the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`questions here are not easily understandable.
`
`In its requests for production, Patent Owner provides twelve combined
`
`instructions and definitions. (Ex. 2001.) For instance, it is unclear the details of
`
`what or who constitutes a “beneficiary.” The request then appears to define
`
`another term, “Unnamed Funders,” but it is unclear which of listed entities fall
`
`within that definition or how some entities could be considered “funders.” The
`
`second request introduces the undefined term “non-natural Person Named” and
`
`compounds the confusion by basing the request on the results of the “Unnamed
`
`Funders” from the first request.
`
`The confusion further compounds throughout the requests and
`
`interrogatories. Patent Owner’s conclusory defense that the “discovery request
`
`instructions are easily understandable” (Paper 9 at 15) is of no moment. Thus, the
`
`fourth Garmin factor also weighs against granting additional discovery.
`
`D. Patent Owner’s Discovery Requests are Significantly Overbroad
`and Burdensome.
`
`The fifth Garmin factor requires consideration of whether the requests for
`
`discovery are overly burdensome to answer, given the expedited nature of the inter
`
`partes review. That burden includes financial burden, burden on human resources
`
`and burden on meeting the time schedule. Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
`
`Corp., IPR2012-00042, Paper 24, 6 (April 25, 2013) (citing IPR2012- 00001,
`
`“factor 5.”). The requests should be sensible and reasonably tailored according to
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`a genuine need. Wavecrest, at 6. The Patent Owner “should identify specifically
`
`what discovery it requests and include a showing as to why the discovery of each
`
`item is in the interest of justice.” (Paper 8 at 3.) Patent Owner has not done so.
`
`The discovery requests are unbounded by any temporal limitations. These
`
`litigation-style requests should be denied because they request overwhelming
`
`amounts of irrelevant information. Palo Alto, Paper 36, at 2-3.
`
`Specifically, the first request for production seeks documents and things
`
`providing the identification of nineteen different categories of entities as they relate
`
`to five other entities. Responding to this request alone is overly burdensome.
`
`The second request for production seeks documents and things “providing
`
`the governance and organization” of each non-natural “Person Named” (which is
`
`undefined) and Unnamed Funder. The remainder of the second request broadens,
`
`rather than narrows, the request while making it less clear by requesting all
`
`“similar service agreements” and “other organizational or governing documents.”
`
`The other requests are equally as overbroad.
`
`The interrogatories are similarly overbroad in that they also seek information
`
`that will not result in useful information. (Ex. 2002.) No interrogatory addresses
`
`any relationship of those entities to this proceeding. (Id.) Accordingly, those
`
`interrogatories request information far beyond what is “useful” as defined in the
`
`first Garmin factor discussed above.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`The deposition topics are also unbounded. (Ex. 2003.) First, Patent Owner
`
`does not articulate the basis for the deposition topics in its moving brief. The three
`
`broad topics address almost all business aspects of every Named and Unnamed
`
`Funder, which includes, by Patent Owner’s definition, every investor along with
`
`eighteen other different categories of relationships to the “Named Funders.” Patent
`
`Owner has not tailored any of its discovery requests. Synopsis, at 7.
`
`Another consideration for the fifth Garmin factor is the burden imposed by
`
`the requested discovery on all parties for meeting the time schedule of this inter
`
`partes review. Garmin, at 15. Here, production and resolution of discovery
`
`disputes likely will continue for several months. Disputes that arise as the
`
`specifics of the vague and overbroad requests encounter reality may further strain
`
`the Board’s resources and ability to meet its statutory timelines.
`
`Patent Owner fails to provide a “showing as to why the discovery of each
`
`item is in the interest of justice,” as ordered by the Board. (Paper 8 at 3 (emphasis
`
`added).) No attempt is made by Patent Owner to justify its need for all the
`
`documents and information it requests. For at least these reasons, the fifth Garmin
`
`factor weighs heavily against granting the additional discovery.2
`
`2 In addition, the Board explicitly limited Patent Owner’s motion for additional
`
`discovery. (Paper 8.) “The motion is to be no more than 15 pages.” (Id. at 3.)
`
`“Patent Owner, in its motion, should identify specifically what discovery it
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Patent Owner’s request for additional discovery should be denied.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`BY: /s/ Matthew L. Fedowitz
`
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Reg. No. 61,386
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Reg. No. 58,884
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`1701 Duke Street, Suite 310
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requests.” (Id. (bold emphasis added).) Patent Owner has violated these clear
`
`instructions by including six additional pages outside of its motion. Patent Owner
`
`included all of its discovery requests outside of its motion, resulting in six
`
`additional pages not included “in its motion.” (Exs. 2001-2003.) Due to Patent
`
`Owner’s disregard for the Board’s instructions, Petitioner requests that the Board
`
`deny Patent Owner’s motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 10th day
`
`of June, 2015, a complete and entire copy of PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY, Exhibits
`
`1031 and 1032 for IPR2015-00990 and Exhibits 1032 and 1033 for IPR2015-
`
`01093, and an updated exhibit list were provided via electronic mail and UPS to
`
`the following counsel as designated in Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices (Paper
`
`5):
`
`
`Joseph R. Robinson
`Heather Morehouse Ettinger
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10174-0700
`joseph.robinson@troutmansanders.com
`heather.ettinger@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`
`Dustin B. Weeks
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 5200
`Atlanta, GA 30308-2231
`dustin.weeks@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`BY: /s/ Matthew L Fedowitz
`Matthew L. Fedowitz
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
` 1701 Duke Street, Suite 310
` Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
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
