`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: September 14, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
` Case IPR2016-01357 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)1
` Case IPR2016-01358 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
` Case IPR2016-01359 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
` Case IPR2016-01360 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
` Case IPR2016-01361 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`___________
`
`
`Before SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 108(c)
`
`
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this caption in any other filings.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01357 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
`IPR2016-01358 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
`IPR2016-01359 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`IPR2016-01360 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`IPR2016-01361 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`
`
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`On September 8, 2016, in an email communication, Petitioner
`requested leave under 37 C.F.R. § 108(c) to file a five-page reply to the
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in each of these cases. In that
`communication, Petitioner referred to certain portions of the Preliminary
`Response that requested denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a),
`324(a), and 325(d). Petitioner requested leave to file a reply limited to that
`issue. On September 9, 2016, Patent Owner advised the Board by email that
`it opposes Petitioner’s request.
`
`After due consideration of the matter, and the Board’s recognition of
`the case-dispositive nature of the issues, we authorize the filing of a Reply to
`the Preliminary Response, limited to five pages, and strictly limited in scope
`to the issues identified in the September 8, 2016 communication. Petitioner
`may file the Reply in each of the cases. No new, additional issues nor
`evidence or argument related to any new issues shall be included. A five-
`page Sur-Reply from Patent Owner is also authorized, and is limited to the
`issues addressed in Petitioner’s Reply to the Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner is granted leave to file a Reply to the
`Preliminary Response;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01357 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
`IPR2016-01358 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
`IPR2016-01359 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`IPR2016-01360 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`IPR2016-01361 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Reply will be limited to five pages,
`and shall only address the argument raised in the Preliminary Response that
`the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 324(a), and 325(d).
`FURTHER ORDERED that the same Reply may be filed in each of
`Cases IPR2016-01357, IPR2016-01358, IPR2016-01359, IPR2016-01360,
`and IPR2016-01361;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Reply is due no later than September
`21, 2016;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Reply may not introduce
`new, additional issues beyond those mentioned in its September 8, 2016,
`email communication to the Board, nor introduce evidence or argument
`related to new any issues; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a five-page Sur-Reply by Patent Owner
`may be filed by September 28, 2016, limited to issues addressed in
`Petitioner’s Reply to the Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01357 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
`IPR2016-01358 (Patent 9,046,820 B1)
`IPR2016-01359 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`IPR2016-01360 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`IPR2016-01361 (Patent 8,909,094 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Steven F. Meyer
`Tim Tingkang Xia
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`smeyer@lockelord.com
`txia@lockelord.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Edmund J. Haughey
`Michael Sandonato
`Justin J. Oliver
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`canon820ipr@fchs.com
`
`4
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
