`Filed: September 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Verizon Services Corp. et al.
`
`By: Dinesh N. Melwani (dmelwani@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`Roland G. McAndrews (rmcandrews@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`Aaron M. Johnson (ajohnson@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`BOOKOFF McANDREWS, PLLC
`2401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Suite 450
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: 202-808-3550
`Facsimile: 202-450-5538
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
` _________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., VERIZON SOUTH INC., VERIZON VIRGINIA
`LLC, VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., VERIZON FEDERAL INC.,
`VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC., AND MCI
`COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SPHERIX INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01381
`U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`___________________
`
`PETITIONERS VERIZON SERVICES CORP. ET AL.'S
`REQUEST FOR REFUND OF POST-INSTITUTION FEES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Patent and Trademark Office’s Final Rule Setting and
`
`Adjusting Patent Fees, 78 Fed. Reg. 4212, 4232-4234 (Jan. 18, 2013), Petitioners
`
`Verizon Services Corp., Verizon South Inc., Verizon Virginia LLC, Verizon
`
`Communications Inc., Verizon Federal Inc., Verizon Business Network Services
`
`Inc., and MCI Communications Services, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) request
`
`a refund in the amount of $14,000.00 to be paid to either Deposit Account Number
`
`50-5906 or credited to the credit card used to initially provide payment.
`
`
`
`On June 11, 2015, Petitioners filed a Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,980,564 (“the ’564 patent”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”). In accordance with the fee schedule specified in 35 C.F.R. § 42.15(a),
`
`Petitioners deposited an electronic payment with the filing of the Petition. The
`
`electronic payment included $9,000.00 for fees associated with Petitioners’ request
`
`for review and a further $14,000 for post-institution fees.
`
`
`
`On September 14, 2015, the Board entered a Decision on a Joint Motion to
`
`Terminate pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a), 42.71(a), to dismiss the Petition since
`
`the PTAB had “not yet entered a decision on institution in this proceeding.” Paper
`
`No. 8 at 2. Accordingly, Petitioners request a refund in the amount of $14,000.00
`
`for the post-institution fees that they have paid but are no longer necessary.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 23, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: _________________________
` Dinesh N. Melwani
` Reg. No. 60,670
`
`Counsel for Verizon Services Corp. et al.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), I hereby certify that
`
`a true and correct copy of the foregoing, PETITIONERS VERIZON
`
`SERVICES CORP. ET AL’S REQUEST FOR REFUND OF POST-
`
`INSTITUTION FEES, was served on September 23, 2015, via electronic mail on
`
`counsel of record for the Patent Owner at the correspondence address of the Patent
`
`Owner as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Darrell G. Dotson, Esq.
`Spherix Incorporated
`222 N. Fredonia St.
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: 903-212-3113
`Email: ddotson@spherix.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 23, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: _________________________
` Dinesh N. Melwani
` Reg. No. 60,670
`
`Counsel for Verizon Services Corp. et al.
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
