`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: August 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01577 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01580 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01581 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01582 (Patent 8,542,643 B2) 1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE and PATRICK M. BOUCHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent papers
`without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01580 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01581 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01582 (Patent 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`On August 20, 2015, Patent Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s
`
`Motion for Joinder. Paper 8; see Paper 7 (authorizing filing by August 20, 2015).
`
`On August 21, Petitioner transmitted email correspondence to the Board that
`
`“seeks leave to reply” to the opposition. The email correspondence includes a
`
`number of substantive arguments that respond to positions taken by Patent Owner
`
`in its Opposition. Such arguments are improper as part of a request for
`
`authorization to file a reply. See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills
`
`Media, LLC, Case IPR2014-00717, slip op. (PTAB July 10, 2014) (Paper 6)
`
`(expanded panel). They are not included in the record of the proceeding, and they
`
`impede the Board’s ability to discharge its mission to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`Accordingly, we do not consider the substantive arguments raised in
`
`Petitioner’s email correspondence. We take the opportunity to remind the parties
`
`that attempts to circumvent the Board’s requirements for prior authorization to file
`
`substantive papers may warrant the imposition of sanctions, including “[a]n order
`
`. . . precluding a party from filing a paper.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(b)(2); see Samsung
`
`at 3.
`
`We have considered, and grant, Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a
`
`reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01580 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01581 (Patent 7,477,624 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01582 (Patent 8,542,643 B2)
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 8), by August 31, 2015,
`
`limited to five pages.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Nathan Rees
`Nate.rees@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Richard S. Zembek
`Richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`R. Ross Viguet
`Ross.viguet@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory Donahue
`gdonahue@dpelaw.com
`
`David Simmons
`Dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net