`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01033 Paper 7
`IPR2015-01037 Paper 7
`Date Entered: August 6, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS INC., STREAMRAY INC., WMM, LLC,
`WMM HOLDINGS, LLC, MULTI MEDIA, LLC, AND
`DUODECAD IT SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.À.R.L.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2015-01033;
`Patent 8,327,011 B2
`Case IPR2015-01037;
`Patent 8,122,141 B21
`____________
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DENIAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01033; IPR2015-01037
`Patent 8,327,011 B2; 8,122,141 B2
`
`On July 31, 2015, counsel for Friendfinder Networks Inc., Streamray Inc.,
`WMM, LLC,WMM HOLDINGS, LLC, Multi Media, LLC, and Duodecad IT
`Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L (collectively, “Petitioner”) by e-mail requested a
`teleconference to seek authorization to file a Reply to the Preliminary Response
`filed by WAG Acquisition (“Patent Owner”) in IPR2015-01033 and IPR-01037
`(“Subject Proceedings”). Petitioner’s request stated that Petitioner sought to
`respond to Patent Owner's arguments regarding the proper legal standard for
`determining whether certain documents constitute a “printed publication.”
`Petitioner also stated that it wished to respond to Patent Owner’s characterization
`of keywords that would be used by a diligent searcher in view of the content of the
`patent specifications.
`In a teleconference on August 4, 2015, Petitioner was represented by
`Matthew Dushek and Patent Owner was represented by Ronald Abramson. During
`the conference, Petitioner argued that the legal standard for a printed publication is
`a threshold issue and that the Board has permitted petitioners to reply to patent
`owner preliminary responses that concern threshold issues. Patent Owner
`responded that the issue of whether an asserted reference is a printed publication
`goes to the merits and could have been addressed in the Petition. Patent Owner
`also argued that allowing Petitioner to respond to its Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response effectively would provide Petitioner with more than the allotted number
`of pages for a petition.
`Noting that it does not seek to introduce new evidence or rebut facts put
`forth in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Petitioner agreed that the question
`before us is a legal one. Our procedures, which we construe to secure the just,
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of each proceeding, 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), do
`not, in the ordinary course, provide for a petitioner to reply to a patent owner
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01033; IPR2015-01037
`Patent 8,327,011 B2; 8,122,141 B2
`preliminary response. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101–107. In this case, where the issue is a
`legal one and Petitioner does not seek to introduce evidence disputing facts
`asserted in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response concerning the indexing and
`cataloging of the relevant publications, we are not persuaded that a reply to the
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response is warranted.
`In view of the circumstances, Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a
`reply is DENIED.
`
`PETITIONER
`Frank M. Gasparo
`Jeffri A. Kaminski
`VENABLE LLP
`FMGasparo@Venable.com
`JAKaminski@Venable.com
`
`Kevin M. O’Brien
`Richard V. Wells
`Matthew S. Dushek
`BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
`Duodecad_WAG@bakermckenzie.com
`richard.wells@bakermckenzie.com
`matt.dushek@bakermckenzie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Ronald Abramson
`LEWIS BAACH PLLC
`ronald.abramson@lewisbaach.com
`
`Ernest D. Buff
`ERNEST D. BUFF & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
`ebuff@edbuff.com
`
`
`
`
`3
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
