`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 30
`Date: April 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`COXCOM, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01509 Case IPR2015-01611 Case IPR2015-017601
`Patent 6,549,130 B1
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses the same issues in the above-identified cases. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be entered in each of the
`identified cases. The parties are not authorized to use this style of case caption.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509 Case IPR2015-01611 Case IPR2015-01760
`Patent 6,549,130 B1
`
`
`_______________
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, STACEY G. WHITE, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Lifting Stay of Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/013,301
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.3, 42.122(a)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509 Case IPR2015-01611 Case IPR2015-01760
`Patent 6,549,130 B1
`
`
`The panel stayed Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/013, 301 (“301 Reexam”),
`the co-pending ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,130 B1 (“the ’130
`patent”), the patent challenged in IPR2015-01509, IPR2015-01611, and IPR2015-
`01760. IPR2015-01509 Paper 23, IPR2015-01611 Paper 16, IPR2015-01760
`Paper 15. Final Written Decisions have been issued holding that Nissan North
`America, Inc., has shown claims 26, 29, 30, 33, 42, 43, 48, 60, and 68 of the ’130
`patent to be unpatentable (IPR2015-01509 Paper 29, 65); Volkswagen Group of
`America, Inc., has shown claims 26, 31, 38, 42, 43, 48, 60, 63, 64,73, 74, 85, 138,
`139, and 143, 119, 120, and 205 of the ’130 patent to be unpatentable (IPR2015-
`01611 Paper 21, 21); and Coxcom LLC has shown claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 17, 98, 119,
`124, 145, and 149 of the ’130 patent to be unpatentable (IPR2015-01760 Paper 25,
`30).
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2), a party dissatisfied with a final decision of
`the Board must file its request for rehearing within 30 days. The 30-day deadline
`for filing a request for rehearing has passed in IPR2015-01509 and IPR2015-01760
`without the filing of any such a request. In IPR2015-01611, Petitioner filed a
`Request for Rehearing (Paper 22) and a decision has been issued denying that
`Request (Paper 23). In addition, no party has filed a notice appeal as required by
`35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.2(a) and 90.3. Accordingly, it is now
`appropriate to lift the stay of Reexamination Control No. 90/013,301
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the stay of Reexamination 90/013,301, is hereby lifted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that all time periods in Reexamination 90/013,301
`are hereby restarted.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01509 Case IPR2015-01611 Case IPR2015-01760
`Patent 6,549,130 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`Clay Holloway
`Alton L. Absher III
`Shayne E. O’Reilly
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`aabsher@kilpatricktownsend.com
`soreilly@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Raymond Joao
`rayjoao@optonline.net
`
`René A. Vazquez
`HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
`rvazquez@hgdlawfirm.com
`PG_JCMS@hgdlawfirm.com
`
`Steven W. Ritcheson
`swritcheson@insightplc.com
`
`
`4
`
`