throbber
Joint Motion to Limit the Petition, IPR2017-00351
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FREDMAN BROS. FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BEDGEAR, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2017-00351
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`____________
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO LIMIT THE PETITION
`
`
`
`

`

`Joint Motion to Limit the Petition, IPR2017-00351
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order dated May 10, 2018 (paper 38), Petitioner
`
`Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. and Patent Owner Bedgear, LLC
`
`hereby jointly move for an order to limit the grounds in this proceeding to those
`
`instituted in accordance with the Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`dated June 13, 2017 (Paper 8) (“Institution Decision”).
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board instituted this proceeding as to all
`
`claims challenged in the Petition (Paper 1) based on a portion of the grounds
`
`raised in the Petition (“Originally Instituted Grounds”).1 In turn the Board
`
`denied institution as to certain grounds contained in the Petition in the
`
`Institution Decision. Following the Institution Decision, the parties completed
`
`discovery and briefing, and oral argument was held on March 20, 2018. The
`
`Board has not yet issued a final written decision.
`
`On May 2, 2018, the Board issued an Order (Paper 37) in response to the
`
`U.S. Supreme Court’s April 24, 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138
`
`S. Ct. 1348 (2018). In that Order, the Board modified its Institution Decision to
`
`institute on all of the grounds presented in the Petition and directed the parties
`
`to meet and confer to discuss the impact of the Board’s modification to the
`
`Institution Decision. The parties reached agreement to limit this proceeding to
`
`
`1 For the avoidance of doubt, the term “Originally Instituted Grounds,” as used
`
`herein, means the grounds that were instituted by the Board in its original
`
`Institution Decision, as set forth on pages 31-32 thereof. (Paper 8, pp. 31-32).
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`Joint Motion to Limit the Petition, IPR2017-00351
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`the Originally Instituted Grounds and sought authorization to file this Joint
`
`Motion in an e-mail to the Board dated May 9, 2018. The Board authorized the
`
`filing of this Motion in its order dated May 10, 2018 (Paper 38).
`
`“Removing grounds from a dispute, pursuant to a joint request of the
`
`parties, serves [the] overarching goal of resolving this proceeding in a just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive manner.” Cascades Canada ULC et al. v. Essity
`
`Hygiene and Health AB, IPR2017-01921, Paper 20, at 3 (PTAB May 15, 2018)
`
`(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) and granting, after institution, a joint motion to limit
`
`the petition); see also Apotex Inc., v. OSI Pharms., Inc., IPR2016-01284, Paper
`
`19 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2017) (granting, after institution, a joint motion to limit the
`
`petition by removing a patent claim that was included for trial in the institution
`
`decision); SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1357.
`
`In view of the original Institution Decision instituting trial as to all
`
`challenged claims, the current stage of the proceeding having completed
`
`depositions, briefing, and oral argument, and the parties’ desire to resolve this
`
`proceeding in a “just, speedy, and inexpensive” manner, the parties now jointly
`
`move to limit this proceeding to the Originally Instituted Grounds. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.1(b). Based on at least the above considerations, the parties submit that
`
`reducing the number of grounds at issue in the proceeding promotes efficient
`
`use of the Board’s and parties’ resources.
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`Joint Motion to Limit the Petition, IPR2017-00351
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Board enter an order to
`
`limit the Petition to the Originally Instituted Grounds.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 17, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jason R. Mudd
`
`
`Jason R. Mudd, Reg. No. 57,700
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`BY:
`
` /s/ Joseph J. Richetti
`
`
`Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47,024
`Alexander Walden, pro hac vice
`Frank M. Fabiani, Reg. No. 75,934
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`P: (212) 541-1092
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`alexander.walden@bryancave.com
`frank.fabiani@bryancave.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`Joint Motion to Limit the Petition, IPR2017-00351
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,883
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that a true copy of the
`foregoing document was served via electronic mail this 17th day of May 2018,
`in its entirety on the following lead and back-up counsel for Patent Owner,
`BEDGEAR, LLC:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Alexander Walden
`Frank Fabiani
`Bryan Cave LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`alexander.walden@bryancave.com
`frank.fabiani@bryancave.com
`PTAB-NY@bryancave.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jason R. Mudd
`
`Jason R. Mudd, Reg. No. 57,700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`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