Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 20
`
`Entered: February 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`REACTIVE SURFACES LTD., LLP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01914
`Patent 8,394,618 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`On February 14, 2017, counsel for Patent Owner contacted the Board
`
`to request authorization to file a motion to dismiss the Petition based on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 20
`
`Entered: February 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`REACTIVE SURFACES LTD., LLP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01914
`Patent 8,394,618 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`On February 14, 2017, counsel for Patent Owner contacted the Board
`
`to request authorization to file a motion to dismiss the Petition based on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`Patent 8,394,618 B2
`
`
`sovereign immunity.1 The Board held a conference call on February 17,
`
`2017, between Judges Kaiser, Abraham, and Ankenbrand and counsel for
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, to discuss Patent Owner’s request.
`
`Patent Owner argued that the Regents of the University of Minnesota
`
`are an arm of the government of the State of Minnesota and that they are an
`
`indispensable party to this proceeding, making proceeding against the other
`
`patent owners impossible. Accordingly, Patent Owner argued that, based on
`
`the panel’s decision in Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research
`
`Foundation Inc., Case No. IPR2016-01274 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2017) (Paper 21)
`
`(granting motion to dismiss), Patent Owner here is entitled to dismissal on
`
`the ground of sovereign immunity. Patent Owner also argued that its request
`
`for a motion to dismiss was timely, coming before the deadline for a
`
`decision on institution and less than three weeks after the Covidien decision.
`
`Petitioner argued that Covidien is not applicable because, although the
`
`Regents of the University of Minnesota may have a sovereign-immunity
`
`argument, the remaining patent owners do not, and the Board’s rules have no
`
`rule analogous to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defining
`
`what may and may not be done in the absence of indispensable parties.
`
`Petitioner also argued that the failure of the Regents of the University of
`
`Minnesota to file mandatory notices in this proceeding demonstrates that
`
`they are not an indispensable party.
`
`
`
`1 Although the Petition names only Toyota Motor Corporation as a Patent
`Owner, the challenged patent is also assigned to, inter alia, the Regents of
`the University of Minnesota. Ex. 1001, at [73].
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`Patent 8,394,618 B2
`
`
`Given the unique facts presented by this proceeding, we determine
`
`that it is in the interests of justice to receive briefing on the sovereign-
`
`immunity question. Accordingly, we authorize Patent Owner to file a
`
`motion to dismiss. The motion, not to exceed 20 pages, shall be filed no
`
`later than March 3, 2017. Evidence relevant to the sovereign-immunity
`
`issue may be filed as exhibits accompanying the motion to dismiss. Should
`
`Patent Owner choose to file evidence in the form of declarations, and should
`
`Petitioner wish to cross-examine the declarants, the parties are instructed to
`
`agree on a time and location for the depositions, to take place early enough
`
`to permit Petitioner to file an opposition to the motion. If the parties cannot
`
`resolve any dispute about the depositions of Patent Owner’s declarants, they
`
`should contact the Board to schedule a conference call to resolve the dispute.
`
`Petitioner shall file any opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to
`
`dismiss no later than March 17, 2017. Petitioner’s opposition shall not
`
`exceed 20 pages.
`
`If Petitioner files an opposition, and if that opposition includes
`
`arguments regarding waiver of sovereign immunity, Patent Owner is
`
`authorized to file a reply addressing only the waiver issue no later than
`
`March 24, 2017. The reply shall not exceed 5 pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`Patent 8,394,618 B2
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file, no later than
`
`March 3, 2017, a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, limited to
`
`20 pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if Patent Owner files a motion to dismiss
`
`based on sovereign immunity, Petitioner is authorized to file, no later than
`
`March 17, 2017, an opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to dismiss, limited
`
`to 20 pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner files an opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s motion to dismiss, and if Petitioner’s opposition addresses waiver
`
`of sovereign immunity by the Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`
`Patent Owner is authorized to file, no later than March 24, 2017, a reply
`
`addressing only the waiver issue, limited to 5 pages; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other filings are authorized at this
`
`time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01914
`Patent 8,394,618 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David O. Simmons
`IVC PATENT AGENCY
`dsimmons@ivcpatentagency.com
`
`
`Jonathan D. Hurt
`MCDANIEL & ASSOCIATES, PC
`jhurt@technologylitigators.com
`
`
`Mark A.J. Fassold
`Jorge Mares
`Watts Guerra LLP
`mfassold@wattsguerra.comjmares@wattsguerra.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joshua A. Lorentz
`Richard Schabowsky
`John D. Luken
`Oleg Khariton
`DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
`joshua.lorentz@dinsmore.comrichard.schabowsky@dinsmore.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
