`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: October 1, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`A telephone conference call was held on September 28, 2015. The
`
`participants were respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Scanlon,
`and Busch. The subject matter for discussion is Petitioner’s request for
`authorization to file a Motion to Correct “clerical error” in its Petition
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c). Patent Owner already has filed its
`Preliminary Response on September 10, 2015.
`
`At the outset, we explained that any motion by Petitioner to correct a
`clerical error in the petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) cannot change the
`substance of the petition or require a substantive change in any responsive
`paper that already has been filed by Patent Owner. Counsel for Petitioner
`expressly agreed with that premise.
`
`During the conference call, counsel for Petitioner identified the
`purported clerical error as the reproduction, on pages 17 and 32 of the
`Petition, of Figure 18(2) of the prior art reference identified as “Yamakawa,”
`where Figure 17(2) of Yamakawa should have been reproduced. Counsel
`for Petitioner points out that the textual arguments in the Petition following
`the reproduced Figure consistently refer, correctly, to Figure 17(2) of
`Yamakawa, and not Figure 18(2). Counsel for Petitioner indicates that
`Petitioner also seeks to correct similar mistakes on pages 25 and 47 of the
`declaration Petitioner relies on, i.e., Ex. 1006.
`
`Patent Owner agrees that reproduction of Figure 18(2) is a mistake,
`based on the textual references to Figure 17(2), but Patent Owner did not
`agree that the mistake was a clerical or typographical error. We asked
`counsel for Patent Owner how Patent Owner responded in its Preliminary
`Response to Petitioner’s “mistake,” i.e., whether Patent Owner responded by
`addressing Figure 17(2), or Figure 18(2), as the intended figure. Counsel for
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`Patent Owner answered that Patent Owner did both in the Preliminary
`Response.
`
`Under these circumstances, no formal correction is necessary. It is
`sufficient simply to note for the record:
`
`(a) that Petitioner represents in the conference call that
`the figure reproduced on pages 17 and 32 of its Petition and on
`pages 25 and 47 of Exhibit 1006 is incorrectly taken from
`Yamakawa’s Figure 18(2), and should have been Yamakawa’s
`Figure 17(2);
`
`(b) that Petitioner retracts any perceived reliance on
`Yamakawa’s Figure 18(2) in those instances and confirms
`reliance on Yamakawa’s Figure 17(2), consistent with the text
`in its Petition and in the declaration of its witness; and
`
`(c) that Patent Owner recognizes the noted discrepancy
`between the textual arguments and the reproduced drawing as a
`“mistake” resulting from Petitioner’s reproducing Yamakawa’s
`Figure 18(2), rather than Yamakawa’s Figure 17(2), and has
`addressed, in its Preliminary Response, both alternatives, i.e.,
`(1) treating Petitioner as relying on Yamakawa’s Figure 18(2)
`rather than Yamakawa’s Figure 17(2), and (2) treating the
`reproduced figure as a mistake and assuming that Petitioner in
`these instances was referring to Yamakawa’s Figure 17(2),
`consistent with the written text.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01318
`Patent 8,252,675 B2
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that a motion to correct alleged clerical error in the
`
`Petition and in Exhibit 1006 is unnecessary and not authorized; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if either party believes any
`characterization of its position is inaccurate, that party has no more than
`three business days to initiate a joint telephone conference call with the
`Board to discuss the matter.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Bob Steinberg
`Clement Naples
`Julie Holloway
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`clement.naples@lw.com
`julie.holloway@lw.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph Palys
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`nVdia-Samsung-IPR@paulhastings.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
