`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: May 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00984
`Patent 8,754,780 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1032
`Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00984
`Patent 8,754,780 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), SIPCO, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Request for Rehearing (Paper 28, “Req. Reh’g”) of our April 20, 2017
`Order (Paper 27, “Order”) denying Patent Owner’s request to file a third
`Request for a Certificate of Correction and Petition to Accept an
`Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claim and for Expedited Consideration
`(collectively, “Third Request”). Emerson Electric Co. (“Petitioner”) seeks
`our authorization to file a response to Patent Owner’s Request for
`Rehearing. For reasons set forth below, we deny Patent Owner’s Request
`for Rehearing.
`The Code of Federal Regulations provides that
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single
`request for rehearing without prior authorization from
`the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be
`modified lies with the party challenging the decision.
`The request must specifically identify all matters the
`party believes
`the Board misapprehended or
`overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a
`reply.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`In the Request for Rehearing, Patent Owner argues we overlooked
`Patent Owner’s explanation, in the April 7, 2017 Response (Paper 26) to our
`March 30, 2017 Order to Show Cause (Paper 24), of the circumstances that
`would justify mistakes Patent Owner made in its second Request for a
`Certificate of Correction and Petition to Accept an Unintentionally Delayed
`Priority Claim and for Expedited Consideration (collectively, “Second
`Request”). Req. Reh’g 8–11. Patent Owner also argues that we incorrectly
`found Patent Owner repeated the same mistake in the Second Request that it
`made in a first Request for a Certificate of Correction and Petition to Accept
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1032
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00984
`Patent 8,754,780 B2
`
`an Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claim and for Expedited Consideration
`(collectively, “First Request”). Id. at 11.
`We did not overlook Patent Owner’s explanation. Rather, we did not
`find it compelling. Mere disagreement with the decision in our Order is not
`sufficient grounds for rehearing. Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`argument, we did not find Patent Owner repeated the same mistake in the
`Second Request that it had made in the First Request.
`Patent Owner has made several errors and mistakes throughout Patent
`Owner’s attempts to make a claim of priority with respect to U.S. Patent No.
`8,754,780 B2 (the “’780 patent”), including during prosecution of the
`application leading to the ’780 patent (see, e.g., Paper 13, 1–5; Ex. 1022–
`1034; Paper 15; Ex. 2011–2021), during prosecution of the application to
`which Patent Owner seeks to claim priority (i.e., Application No.
`12/477,329) (see, e.g., Ex. 3002, 2), and in the First Request (see, e.g.,
`Ex. 3001) and Second Request (see, e.g., Ex. 3002). In our Order, our
`finding regarding Patent Owner’s “repeated mistakes” was in reference to
`Patent Owner’s demonstrated pattern of making errors it should have
`recognized and could have avoided with the exercise of minimal diligence.
`Paper 27, 3. In the Response to our Order to Show Cause, Patent Owner did
`not provide sufficient justification for the failure to avoid making error after
`error.
`Under the present circumstances, we are not persuaded to modify our
`decision to exercise our jurisdiction pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.3 and deny
`Patent Owner’s request to file a Third Request. Paper 27, 3. We, therefore,
`deny Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. Because we deny Patent
`Owner’s Request for Rehearing, Petitioner’s request for authorization to file
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1032
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00984
`Patent 8,754,780 B2
`
`a response to Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied as moot.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Don Jackson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`djackson@dbjg.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory Gonsalves
`GONSALVES LAW FIRM
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Emerson's Exhibit 1032
`Page 4 of 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
