Van Nort, Diek O.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`- External Email -
`
`Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:59 PM
`William Rothwell; Trials
`Van Nort, Diek O.; Bockman, Jonathan; 35667-728-IPR; Kayvan Noroozi
`RE: IPR2017-01354 // Request for Supplemental Brief
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`Patent Owner is authorized to file a supplemental brief addressing application of the General Plastic factors in
`this case. See General Plastic Industrial Co v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357 et seq., Paper 15. Patent Owner’s
`brief shall be submitted on or before October 20, 2017. Petitioner is authorized to file a response to Patent Owner’s
`brief. Petitioner’s response shall be submitted on or before October 25, 2017. Each party’s brief shall be limited to no
`more than three pages and shall conform to our Rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (addressing formatting, service, and filing of
`briefs). No further briefing is authorized.
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`Direct: 571-272-5366
`
`
`
`From: William Rothwell [mailto:william@noroozipc.com]  
`Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:44 AM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: dvannort@mofo.com; jbockman@mofo.com; 35667‐728‐IPR <35667‐728‐IPR@mofo.com>; Kayvan Noroozi 
`<kayvan@noroozipc.com> 
`Subject: IPR2017‐01354 // Request for Supplemental Brief 
` 
`Dear Board, 
`
`  
`Patent Owner respectfully requests authorization from the Board to file a three‐page supplement to its Patent Owner 
`Preliminary Response.   
`  
`In particular, the Board last week declined to institute two other petitions for inter partes review involving the same 
`Petitioner and Patent Owner in this proceeding (NetApp and Realtime Data). In those decisions, the Board explained 
`that “the General Plastic factors provide a useful framework for analyzing the facts and circumstances present in this 
`case, in which a different petitioner filed a petition challenging a patent that had been challenged already by previous 
`petitions.” See IPR2017‐01195, Paper 9 at 10; IPR2017‐01196, Paper 10 at 9. 
`
`  
`The General Plastic decision issued after the Patent Owner filed its preliminary response in this proceeding, and so 
`Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to address those factors. Patent Owner’s supplemental paper would explain 
`how application of the General Plastic factors similarly warrants non‐institution of the petition here. 
`  
`
`1
`
`NetApp Exhibit 1007 Page 1
`
`

`

`We have conferred with counsel for Petitioner, and they do not to oppose this request. In turn, Patent Owner does not 
`oppose Petitioner’s having an opportunity to file its own three‐page supplement addressing the General Plastic factors. 
`  
`If the Board would like a call to discuss, the parties are available after 2EST today (October 17) and tomorrow (October 
`18). 
`
`  
`Respectfully submitted, 
`
`  
`William P. Rothwell 
`Noroozi PC 
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300 
`Sugar Land, TX  77479 
`(281) 566‐2685 
`  
`
`2
`
`NetApp Exhibit 1007 Page 2
`
`