`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 30
`Entered: June 4, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`VIPTELA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`_______________
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Extending One-Year Pendency for Good Cause
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 4, 5,
`6–15, 19, and 22–24 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`B2 (“the ’253 patent”). Paper 1, 1. On July 14, 2017, the Board instituted
`an inter partes review of claims 6 and 22–24 of the ’235 patent. Paper 8, 19.
`Thereafter, on April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS
`Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) (“SAS decision”). The one-
`year period normally available to issue a Final Written Decision expires on
`July 14, 2018.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11), “the final determination in an
`inter partes review [shall] be issued not later than 1 year after the date on
`which the Director notices the institution of a review under this chapter,
`except that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend the 1-year
`period by not more than 6 months . . . .” The Director has delegated the
`authority to extend the one-year period to the Chief Administrative Patent
`Judge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). In particular, 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)
`provides:
`An inter partes review proceeding shall be administered such
`that pendency before the Board after institution is normally no
`more than one year. The time can be extended by up to six
`months for good cause by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge
`. . . .
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c), the Chief Judge has
`determined that good cause exists to extend the one-year period for issuing a
`Final Written Decision here. Paper 28; 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Accordingly,
`the time to administer the present proceeding is extended by up to six
`months.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that good cause exists to extend the time of pendency in
`this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is extended by up to six
`months.
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert Hilton
`George Davis
`McGUIRE WOODS LLP
`rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
`gdavis@mcguirewoods.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Robert Mattson
`Sameer Gokhale
`OBLON, McLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`CPDdocketMattson@oblon.com
`cpdocketgokhale@oblon.com
`
`3
`
`