`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: October 3, 2017
`
`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
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe Networks Private Limited1 (“Patent Owner”) requests to
`
`extend the due date set forth in the Scheduling Order in this proceeding for
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition from October 6, 2017 to
`
`October 20, 2017. See Paper 10, 5 (“Scheduling Order”). Viptela, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) opposes Patent Owner’s request. However, Petitioner requests
`
`that if we grant Patent Owner an extension, that we extend the due date for
`
`Petitioner to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`On October 2, 2017, Judges Wormmeester and Zado, counsel for
`
`Patent Owner, and counsel for Petitioner, participated in a conference call
`
`regarding Patent Owner’s request. Patent Owner alleged the purpose of the
`
`request is to facilitate settlement discussions. Petitioner disagreed that the
`
`discussions would lead to settlement of the parties’ dispute.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c), “[t]he Board may set times by order.”
`
`The Scheduling Order in this proceeding provides that DUE DATE 1 is the
`
`due date for Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition and Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend the patent. Paper 10, 5. DUE DATE 2 is the due date for
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition and
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. Id. Petitioner
`
`acknowledged, during the conference call, that it will not suffer any harm or
`
`prejudice if we extend DUE DATE 1 by two weeks so long as we also
`
`extend DUE DATE 2 by two weeks, thus providing Petitioner with the same
`
`
`1 In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner refers to itself as “FatPipe
`Networks Private Limited.” Paper 6, 1. However, in a mandatory notice
`filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2), Patent Owner refers to itself as
`“FatPipe Networks India Limited,” and states that “FatPipe Networks India
`Limited” and “FatPipe, Inc.” are the real parties in interest in this
`proceeding. Paper 5, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`amount of time to respond to Patent Owner’s Response and Motion to
`
`
`
`
`
`Amend as it has under the current Scheduling Order. Patent Owner does not
`
`oppose extending DUE DATE 2 by two weeks if we extend DUE DATE 1
`
`by two weeks. The parties have not requested modifying any other due
`
`dates in this proceeding.
`
`We hereby grant Patent Owner’s request to modify DUE DATE 1 in
`
`the Scheduling Order from October 6, 2017 to October 20, 2017, and we
`
`grant Petitioner’s contingent request to modify DUE DATE 2 from
`
`December 29, 2017 to January 12, 2018.
`
`We do not modify any other DUE DATES in the Scheduling Order.
`
`We note that the Scheduling Order provides that “[t]he parties may stipulate
`
`to dates for DUE DATES 1 through 5 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE
`
`DATE 6).” Paper 10, 2.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that DUE DATE 1 in the Scheduling Order (Paper 10) is
`
`modified from October 6, 2017 to October 20, 2017; and
`
`DUE DATE 2 in the Scheduling Order (Paper 10) is modified from
`
`December 29, 2017 to January 12, 2018.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other DUE DATE in the Scheduling
`
`Order is modified.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert Hilton
`rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
`
`George Davis
`gdavis@mcguirewoods.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Mattson
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`
`Sameer Gokhale
`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
