`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 53
`Entered: August 30, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIDSTREAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`On August 27, 2018, Patent Owner contacted the Board by e-mail
`
`seeking permission to file sur-replies in the above-captioned cases in lieu of
`
`observations on cross-examination. Ex. 3008. Patent Owner contends that
`
`its request is consistent with the recent updates to the Board’s Trial Practice
`
`Guide and will “afford Patent Owner an opportunity to address new
`
`evidence and new arguments first raised in Petitioner’s recent Replies.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner represents that Petitioner opposes its request. Id.
`
`The August 2018 Update to the Trial Practice Guide2 (“Trial Practice
`
`Guide Update”) states that “[s]ur-replies to principal briefs (i.e., to a reply to
`
`a patent owner response or to a reply to an opposition to a motion to amend)
`
`normally will be authorized by the scheduling order entered at institution.”
`
`Trial Practice Guide Update 14. The Trial Practice Guide Update further
`
`states that its “sur-reply practice essentially replaces the previous practice of
`
`filing observations on cross-examination testimony.” Id.
`
`We entered an Order in these proceedings updating the schedule on
`
`May 14, 2018.3 That Order sets DUE DATE 4 for “[o]bservations regarding
`
`cross-examination of reply witness” as September 14, 2018. Patent Owner
`
`does not seek to change DUE DATE 4, but rather seeks to file a sur-reply
`
`instead of observations. See Ex. 3008.
`
`We determine Patent Owner’s request is consistent with the Trial
`
`Practice Guide Update, and that request is granted. Patent Owner’s sur-reply
`
`shall be subject to the limits discussed in the Trial Practice Guide Update,
`
`
`2 Available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP.
`3 Paper 38 in IPR2017-00829; Paper 39 in IPR2017-00830; Paper 38 in
`IPR2017-01131; Paper 35 in IPR2017-01133.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`including that the sur-reply may only respond to arguments made in
`
`Petitioner’s reply brief, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to
`
`cross-examination testimony; and may not be accompanied by new evidence
`
`other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply
`
`witness. Trial Practice Guide Update 14–15. In addition, Patent Owner’s
`
`sur-reply is subject to the same word limit as Petitioner’s reply. Id. at 6.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to file a sur-reply in lieu of
`
`observations is granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order (Paper 13) as
`
`amended by the May 14, 2018 Order is further revised to reflect DUE
`
`DATES 4–7 provided in the Due Date Appendix below but is unchanged in
`
`all other respects.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 4 ................................................................... September 14, 2018
`
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s
`response to petition
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................... September 28, 2018
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ......................................................................... October 5, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ....................................................................... October 19, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`IPR2017-00829, -00830
`David McCombs
`Gregory Huh
`Theodore Foster
`Raghav Bajaj
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`Raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`IPR2017-01131, -01133
`Todd Siegel
`Andrew Mason
`Robert T. Cruzen
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`Todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`Andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`Rob.cruzen@klarquist.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott McKeown
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Scott.mckeown@ropes.gray.com
`
`Spencer C. Patterson
`GRABLE MARTIN FULTON PLLC
`patterson@gchub.com
`
`Stephen L. Levine
`CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P.
`slevine@ccsb.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`