`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: April 27, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00118
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.05
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`On April 22, 2016, a telephone conference was held. The participants
`were respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee and Bui. Counsel for
`Patent Owner explained that Patent Owner inadvertently omitted the word
`“not” in five instances in the Patent Owner Response such that a literal
`reading of those sentences conveys the opposite of what was intended, and
`that when the representations are read, in context, readers would readily
`recognize the inadvertent omission. Counsel for Patent Owner asked the
`Board what it should do.
`We suggested and authorized Patent Owner to prepare and file a
`document that specifically identifies the five instances where it desires the
`text to be read as though the word “not” is present, indicate that the Patent
`Owner response should be read as though the word “not” is present in those
`five instances, and indicate whether Petitioner agrees with that proposal,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`Patent 8,155,342 B2
`
`Petitioner:
`Paul Haughey
`Scott Kolassa
`phaughey@kilpatricktownsend.com
`skolassa@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`
`Patent Owner:
`Peter Lambaianakos
`planbrianakos@brownrudnick.com
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
