`
`Paper 32
`Entered: June 12, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one
`of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 B2 is unpatentable.
`Paper 8, 3, 18–19. However, we did not institute as to all challenged claims
`and all grounds presented in the Petition. Id. at 19; Paper 1 (Petition). As a
`result of our not instituting on all challenged claims, Petitioner requested,
`and on November 11, 2017, was granted, a refund of $400.00 in post-
`institution fees. Paper 19; Paper 20.
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr.
`24, 2018). On May 9, 2018, we modified our institution decision to include
`review of all the challenged claims and all the grounds presented in the
`Petition, and ordered the parties to confer regarding the impact of SAS on
`this proceeding. Paper 26.
`Conference calls were held on May 18, 2018 and May 22, 2018
`between counsel for each party and Judges White, Wormmeester, and Zado
`to discuss the impact of SAS on this proceeding. During these calls, we
`discussed the possibility of terminating the portion of this case relating to the
`newly instituted claims and grounds, but the parties were not able to come to
`an agreement.
`On May 31, 2018, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge extended the
`one-year period to issue a final determination in this proceeding upon a
`showing of good cause, and we entered an order extending the one-year
`pendency. Paper 28; Paper 29. In addition, we entered an order authorizing
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`supplemental briefing and a supplemental hearing. Paper 30.
`The institution of the newly instituted claims impacts the refund
`approval entered on November 11, 2017. In accordance with the rules and
`regulations setting forth fees, we require Petitioner to repay the refunded
`post-institution fee in the amount of $400.00. The due date to repay this fee
`is five (5) business days from the date of this Order. Given the requirement
`that we may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the Petition, if
`repayment of the refunded post-institution fee is not timely made, the
`Board shall terminate this proceeding in its entirety.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner is required to repay the refunded post-
`institution fee in the amount of $400.00;
`FURTHER ORDERED that repayment of the refunded post-
`institution fee is due no later than five (5) business days from the date of this
`Order; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that if repayment of the post-institution fee is
`not timely made, this proceeding shall be terminated in its entirety.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`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
`
`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
