`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 116
`Date: May 5, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2015-01750
`Patent 8,484,111 B2
`
`IPR2015-01751
`IPR2015-01752
`Patent 7,356,482 B21
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Patent Owner’s Opposition
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.20
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`These three proceedings are on remand from the U.S. Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 30, 2020, Petitioner, RPX
`Corporation, contacted the Board by email requesting a conference call to
`seek authorization to file a motion to stay the proceedings. Petitioner
`indicated that in view of the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v.
`Click-to-Call Technologies, No. 18-916 (Apr. 20, 2020), holding that the
`Board’s decisions on the application of the time limit of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`are not appealable, RPX planned to file a motion with the Federal Circuit to
`recall the mandate, vacate the court’s judgment, and reinstate the appeal
`from the Board’s Final Written Decisions in these proceedings. The email
`also indicated that Patent Owner, Applications in Internet Time, LLC, would
`oppose the request. Petitioner notified the Board in a second email that RPX
`filed its planned motion to recall the mandate on May 4, 2020.
`On May 5, 2020, Judges Pettigrew and Weatherly held a conference
`call with counsel for the parties to discuss Petitioner’s request for
`authorization to file a motion to stay. A court reporter engaged by Petitioner
`was also on the call. Petitioner will file the reporter’s transcript as an exhibit
`promptly when it becomes available. The transcript will serve as a record of
`the parties’ arguments regarding Petitioner’s request.
`After hearing the parties’ oral submissions, we advised the parties that
`we would grant Petitioner’s request and authorize briefing on a motion to
`stay.
`
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion
`to stay each of these proceedings on remand is granted;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion will be due on
`May 12, 2020, and is limited to five pages;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file an
`opposition to Petitioner’s motion, due on May 19, 2020, and limited to five
`pages; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may use the caption appearing
`above for the filings made pursuant to this Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR 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@wolfgreenfield.com
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven Sereboff
`Jonathan Pearce
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`jpearce@socalip.com
`
`3
`
`