`Entered: June 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, and SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01407
`Patent 6,928,433
`____________
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01407
`Patent 6,928,433
`
`
`
`
`In email correspondence to the Board, which we have entered as Exhibit
`
`
`
`3002, Patent Owner requests authorization, under 37 C.F.R § 42.20(b), to file a
`
`motion to strike portions of Petitioner’s Reply, portions of the Reply Declaration of
`
`Dr. Bederson (Ex. 1020), and Exhibits 1022–1024. Ex. 3002. Patent Owner
`
`argues that Petitioner’s Reply and exhibits raise issues and arguments that are
`
`outside the proper scope of a reply, raise new issues that could have been raised in
`
`the petition, and violate Patent Owner’s due process rights. Id. Patent Owner
`
`indicates in its correspondence that it has conferred with counsel for Petitioner, and
`
`that “Petitioner opposes this motion.” Id.
`
`“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . .
`
`patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). We have considered Patent
`
`Owner’s request and determine that briefing on a motion to strike is not warranted
`
`at this time. We will evaluate Petitioner’s Reply and supporting evidence and
`
`determine whether they contain material exceeding the proper scope when we
`
`review the record and prepare the final written decision.
`
`
`
`If oral hearing is requested by the parties, Patent Owner may, if it chooses,
`
`argue at the hearing that Petitioner’s Reply contains arguments and evidence that
`
`are beyond the proper scope permitted under the rules. If Patent Owner chooses to
`
`make such an argument at the oral hearing, Petitioner will be given an opportunity
`
`to respond.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is not authorized to file a motion to strike
`
`portions of Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1020, 1022–1024.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01407
`Patent 6,928,433
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Randy Pritzker
`rpritzker-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Michael Rader
`mrader-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Robert Abrahamsen
`rabrahamsen-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Andrew Tibbetts
`atibbetts-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jonathan Baker
`jbaker@farneydaniels.com
`
`Russ Swerdon
`russ_swerdon@creativelabs.com
`
`Gurtej Singh
`tsingh@farneydaniels.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`