Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 89
`Entered: September 19, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`________________________________________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC.,
`and BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01047
`Patent 7,490,151 B2
`________________________________________
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`KARL D. EASTHOM and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`REMAND SCHEDULE
`DISCOVERY MOTION and BRIEFING
`35 U.S.C. § 316(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 5, 42.51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 89
`Entered: September 19, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`________________________________________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC.,
`and BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01047
`Patent 7,490,151 B2
`________________________________________
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`KARL D. EASTHOM and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`REMAND SCHEDULE
`DISCOVERY MOTION and BRIEFING
`35 U.S.C. § 316(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 5, 42.51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046, Patent 6,502,135 B1
`IPR2015-01047, Patent 7,490,151 B2
`
`
`In IPR2015-01046 (“’46IPR”), the Mangrove Partners Master Fund,
`Ltd. and Apple Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) requested inter partes review
`of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 B1 (“the ’135
`patent”). 1 The Board instituted reviews, conducted trials, and issued a Final
`Written Decision, holding claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 of the ’135 patent
`unpatentable. See ’46 IPR, Paper 71.
`In IPR2015-01047 (the “’47IPR”), the Mangrove Partners Master
`Fund, Ltd., Apple Inc., and Black Swamp IP, LLC (collectively “Petitioner”)
`requested inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,490,151 B2 (“the ’151 patent”).2 The Board instituted reviews,
`conducted trials, and issued a Final Written Decision, holding claims 1, 2, 6–
`8, and 12–14 of the ’151 patent unpatentable. See ’47IPR, Paper 80.
`VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”) appealed the Final Written Decision in
`
`each case. Pursuant to the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit issued a decision vacating each Final Written Decision and
`remanding to consider an issue on the merits of unpatentability and to allow
`Patent Owner to file a motion for additional discovery to support its real
`party in interest contentions. See VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners
`Master Fund, Ltd., Apple Inc., No 2017-1368, VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove
`Partners Master Fund, Ltd., Apple Inc., Black Swamp, No. 2017-1383, 2019
`WL 2912776 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2019) (the “Remand”).
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, and the Board joined it as a
`Petitioner in IPR2015-01046.
`2 Apple Inc. and Black Swamp IP, LLC respectively filed a petition in
`IPR2016-00063 and IPR2016-00167, and the Board joined each as a
`Petitioner in IPR2015-01047.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046, Patent 6,502,135 B1
`IPR2015-01047, Patent 7,490,151 B2
`
`
`Pursuant to the Remand, during a teleconference, we instructed the
`parties to file a proposed briefing and discovery schedule and each party
`subsequently filed a respective schedule in each case. See ’46IPR, Papers
`78; ’46IPR, Paper 79; ’46IPR, Ex. 1047 (transcript of teleconference);
`’47IPR, Paper 87; ’47IPR, Paper 88; ’47IPR Ex. 1047 (same transcript).
`“The Board has established a goal to issue decisions on remanded
`cases within six months of the Board’s receipt of the Federal Circuit’s
`mandate. The mandate makes the judgment of the Federal Circuit final and
`releases jurisdiction of the remanded case to the Board.” PTAB Standard
`Operating Procedure 9, Procedure for Decisions Remanded from the Federal
`Circuit for Further Proceedings (Nov. 9, 2017) (“SOP 9”), available at
`https://usptogov.sharepoint.com/sites/bf319f98/Shared%20Documents/Form
`s/AllItems.aspx?FolderCTID=0x012000F14F79D244FFB74496C315D3702
`0EB04.
`The mandate for the Remand issued on August 14, 2019. See ’46IPR,
`Paper 78, 1. Accordingly, after reviewing the parties’ proposed schedules,
`the Board set the following schedule and page/word limits for discovery and
`briefing that shall apply to each case, such that the decision on remand may
`be completed by February 14, 2020 pursuant to SOP 9. Patent Owner bears
`the burden on its motion for discovery. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden
`on the real party in interest and unpatentability issues, and its opening brief
`(“Petitioner’s Brief”) should address both issues if Petitioner seeks
`consideration of each issue.3
`
`
`
`3 The Briefs shall follow the court’s guidance as set forth in the Remand.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046, Patent 6,502,135 B1
`IPR2015-01047, Patent 7,490,151 B2
`
`
`REMAND SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`REMAND DUE DATE 1.............................................. September 27, 2019
`Patent Owner’s (“PO’s”) Motion for Additional Discovery
`(“Disc. Motion”) (15 pages)
`
`
`REMAND DUE DATE 2 .....................................................October 4, 2019
`Petitioner’s Opposition (“Opp.”) to PO’s Disc. Motion (15 pages)
`
`
`REMAND DUE DATE 3 ...................................................October 11, 2019
`PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opp. to PO’s Disc. Motion (5 pages)
`
`
`REMAND DUE DATE 4 .................................................November 8, 2019
`Close of Discovery (if Ordered)
`
`
`REMAND DUE DATE 5 ..................................................December 6, 2019
`Petitioner’s Brief (7,500 words)
`REMAND DUE DATE 6 …............................................December 20, 2019
`Patent Owner’s Opposition Brief (7,500 words)
`REMAND DUE DATE 7…................................................ January 6, 2020
`Petitioner’s Reply Brief (7,500 words)
`REMAND DUE DATE 8.................................................. January 17, 2020
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Brief (7,500 words)
`REMAND DUE DATE 9.................................................. January 24, 2020
`Oral Hearing 10 AM Eastern Time
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046, Patent 6,502,135 B1
`IPR2015-01047, Patent 7,490,151 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Abraham Kasdan
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`akasdan@wiggin.com
`
`James T. Bailey
`jtb@jtbaileylaw.com
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott M. Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`IPRNotices@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`Thomas H. Martin
`Wesley C. Meinerding
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`tmartin@martinferraro.com
`docketing@martinferraro.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`Daniel Zeilberger
`Chetan Bansal
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`danielzeilberger@paulhastings.com
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.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
