throbber
Case: 16-2470 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 04/27/2018
`
`No. 16-2470
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS,
`APPELLANT
`
`v.
`
`ANDREI IANCU,
`INTERVENOR
`
`
`APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` (NO. IPR2015-00309, IPR2015-00310, IPR2015-00311)
`
`
`JOINT COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECT OF
`SAS INSTITUTE V. IANCU ON THE DISPOSITION OF THIS APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Polaris Ex. 2016
`1 Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2016-01622, Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`Case: 16-2470 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 04/27/2018
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s April 27, 2018 request for a comment on the ef-
`
`fect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, 584
`
`U.S. ____ (2018), on the disposition of this appeal, the parties have conferred
`
`and hereby inform the Court of their agreement that SAS Institute should
`
`have no effect on the disposition of this appeal. Neither Patent Owner, PGS
`
`Geophysical AS, nor Petitioner, WesternGeco LLC, preserved an objection
`
`to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) partial institution in this
`
`case. Moreover, as the Court is aware, the Petitioner in this case withdrew
`
`from the proceedings and no longer is challenging any claims of the patent at
`
`issue. Neither the Patent Owner nor the Patent Office seeks a final written
`
`decision regarding the claims as to which the Board declined to institute tri-
`
`al. Accordingly, given that no party seeks further review as to those claims,
`
`the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute has no effect on this appeal.
`
`
`
`
`
`Polaris Ex. 2016
`1 Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2016-01622, Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`Case: 16-2470 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 04/27/2018
`
`
`
`APRIL 27, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ David I. Berl
`DAVID I. BERL
`JESSAMYN S. BERNIKER
`DAVID M. KRINSKY
`CHRISTOPHER A. SUAREZ
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`(202) 434-5000
`
`Counsel for PGS Geophysical AS
`
`
`/s/ Nathan K. Kelley
`NATHAN K. KELLEY
`THOMAS W. KRAUSE
`MONICA BARNES LATEEF
`MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD
`USPTO, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
`P.O. Box 1450
`Mail Stop 8
`Alexandria, VA 22313
`Counsel for Andrei Iancu, Director
`of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Polaris Ex. 2016
`1 Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2016-01622, Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`Case: 16-2470 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 04/27/2018
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I, David I. Berl, counsel for appellant and a member of the Bar of this
`
`Court, certify that, on April 27, 2018, a copy of the attached Joint Comments
`
`Regarding the Effect of SAS Institute v. Iancu on the Disposition of this
`
`Appeal was filed with the Clerk and served on the parties through the
`
`Court’s electronic filing system. I further certify that all parties required to
`
`be served have been served.
`
`
`
`/s/ David I. Berl
`DAVID I. BERL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Polaris Ex. 2016
`1 Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2016-01622, Page 4 of 4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket