throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 87
`IPR2015-01751, Paper 89
`IPR2015-01752, Paper 87
`Entered: December 7, 2018
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01750
`Patent 8,484,111 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`Case IPR2015-01752
`Patent 7,356,482 B21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues common to all cases; therefore, we issue a
`single order to be entered in each case.
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`The captioned proceedings have been remanded to the Board by the
`Federal Circuit. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“RPX”). As discussed in our Order of
`November 20, 2018 (Paper 842), the inquiry on remand relates to whether
`Salesforce.com, Inc. must be identified as a real party-in-interest or privy.
`Pursuant to that Order, the parties have now jointly submitted by e-mail their
`proposals regarding the discovery and briefing schedule for the remanded
`proceedings.3 We have reviewed the parties’ proposals and set the discovery
`and briefing schedule as follows:
`
`Discovery Schedule
`The parties agree regarding the voluntary production of certain
`evidence (see Ex. 3003, 2), discussed in more detail below. The parties were
`unable to reach agreement regarding the timing of potential motion practice
`for additional discovery. See id. at 2–3. Having considered the parties’
`positions, and considering also the desire for a just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution to these remand proceedings, we set the discovery schedule as
`follows:
`
`
`2 Unless indicated otherwise, citations herein are to papers and exhibits filed
`in IPR2015-01750. Similar papers and exhibits were filed in
`IPR2015-01751 and IPR2015-01752.
`3 The parties’ November 30, 2018, e-mail refers also to the parties’ e-mail of
`November 15, 2018. We enter both e-mails into the record for
`completeness. See Ex. 3002 (parties’ joint email of November 15, 2018);
`Ex. 3003 (parties’ joint email of November 30, 2018).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`Deadline
`January 4, 2019
`February 1, 2019
`
`Item Due
`Initial production of documents/declarations
`Depositions of declarants, completed by:
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional
`Discovery (optional)
`1 week from Patent
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion for
`Owner’s Motion
`Additional Discovery
`Production of Additional Discovery (if granted) 2 weeks from Board Order
`
`February 8, 2019
`
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Petitioner’s initial production shall
`include “documentary and/or testimonial evidence responsive to the list of
`discovery items RPX proposed in the parties’ joint e‐mail to the Board of
`November 15, 2018.” Ex. 3003, 2; see also Ex. 3002, 5–6. Further pursuant
`to the parties’ agreement, “[e]ach party should serve, during the production
`period, any new evidence on which that party intends to rely in its briefing.”
`Ex. 3003, 2.
`Petitioner also shall include in its initial production any “[d]ocuments
`discussing any efforts by RPX to shield its clients from being named as real
`parties in interest in inter parte [sic] reviews and covered business method
`reviews.” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1364 (Reyna, J. concurring); see Ex. 3003, 2
`(noting parties’ agreement on this point).
`
`Briefing Schedule
`The parties have provided a joint proposal for the briefing schedule.
`See Ex. 3003, 1–2. Based generally on the parties’ proposal, we set the
`briefing schedule for these remand proceedings as follows:
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`Paper
`
`Petitioner’s Opening Brief
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Opposition
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Brief
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`Brief
`Oral Hearing
`
`Deadline
`4 weeks
`(a) from end of the deposition
`period (if no motion for
`additional discovery,
`i.e., March 1, 2019)
`— or —
`(b) from the Board’s decision
`on any motion for additional
`discovery (if a motion is filed)
`3 weeks from Petitioner’s
`Opening Brief
`2 weeks from Patent Owner’s
`Opposition
`
`None authorized at this time4
`
`To be determined
`
`Length
`
`14,000 words
`
`14,000 words
`
`7,000 words
`
`
`
`
`
`Because the issues on remand are the same in each proceeding, the
`same briefs shall be filed in each of the three proceedings. Thus, the parties
`are authorized to use a single caption listing all three cases, and shall file
`identical papers in each captioned case. Further, in accordance with the
`parties’ agreement “each party’s briefing should rely on evidence already of
`record or served during the discovery period, unless the parties agree
`otherwise or other authorization is obtained from the Board.” Ex. 3003, 2.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`4 Patent Owner may contact the Board to discuss a Sur-Reply if it believes
`one is necessary after reviewing Petitioner’s Reply Brief.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Richard F. Giunta
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`Randy J. Pritzker
`Michael N. Rader
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Steven C. Sereboff
`Jonathan Pearce
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`jpearce@socalip.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket