`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: August 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PRODUCTION ONE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01235
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`On July 5, 2016, Production One, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,864,983 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’983 patent”). Paper 2. On the same day,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01235
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(c),1
`seeking to join this proceeding with RPX Corp. v. MD Security Solutions,
`LLC, Case IPR2016-00285 (“the 285 IPR”). Paper 3 (“Mot.”). In the 285
`IPR, we instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’983 patent. See
`285 IPR, slip op. at 2 (PTAB June 6, 2016) (Paper 9); Mot. 2. Petitioner
`represents that counsel for Petitioner, RPX Corporation, in the 285 IPR does
`not oppose joinder. Mot. 7. Petitioner also represents that “[t]he new
`Petition includes only the grounds instituted in IPR2016-00285 and is
`substantively identical on those grounds.” Id. at 1. Finally, given the
`alleged identity of issues between this proceeding and the 285 IPR,
`Petitioner requests shortened time for Patent Owner preliminary response.
`Id. at 1–2.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Patent Owner, MD Security Systems, LLC,
`if it wishes, may file an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder,
`limited to 15 pages, no later than August 29, 2016.
`
`Patent Owner may file a preliminary response to the Petition no later
`than August 29, 2016. This is a shortened time for filing a preliminary
`response. Patent Owner may, in the alternative, file an election to waive the
`preliminary response to expedite the proceeding.
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner erroneously requests joinder under § 325(c) (Mot. 3), which
`governs joinder for post grant reviews under § 324. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(c).
`However, because this Petition and Motion for Joinder are for inter partes
`review, we interpret Petitioner’s request as referring to the appropriate inter
`partes review joinder statute, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01235
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file an opposition to
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder of this proceeding with RPX Corp. v. MD
`Security Solutions, LLC, Case IPR2016-00285, limited to 15 pages, no later
`than August 29, 2016; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file a preliminary
`response to the Petition, or file an election to waive the preliminary
`response, no later than August 29, 2016.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Joshua A. Griswold
`IPR39959-0009IP1@fr.com
`Dan Smith
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Jason S. Angell
`jangell@fawlaw.com
`Robert E. Freitas
`rfreitas@fawlaw.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
