`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 114
`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
`
`
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
