throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 67
`Entered: August 23, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, WISTRON CORPORATION,
`DELL INC., and CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-01391 (Patent 7,237,036 B2)
`IPR2017-01392 (Patent 7,337,241 B2)
`IPR2017-01393 (Patent 9,055,104 B2)
`IPR2017-01405 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`IPR2017-01406 (Patent 7,673,072 B2)
`IPR2017-01409 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)
`IPR2017-01410 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed petitions in Cases IPR2017-01707,
`IPR2017-01714, IPR2017-01718, IPR2017-01728, IPR2017-01735,
`IPR2017-01736, and IPR2017-01737, has been joined as a petitioner in
`these proceedings. Wistron Corporation, which filed petitions in Cases
`IPR2018-0327, IPR2018-00328, and IPR2018-00329, has been joined as a
`petitioner in IPR2017-01391, IPR2017-01392, and IPR2017-01406,
`respectively. Dell Inc., which filed petitions in Cases IPR2018-00336,
`IPR2018-00338, IPR2018-00339, IPR2018-00371, IPR2018-00372,
`IPR2018-00374 and IPR2018-00375, has been joined as a petitioner in these
`proceedings. This Order applies to each referenced case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this heading style.
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01391 (Patent 7,237,036 B2)
`IPR2017-01392 (Patent 7,337,241 B2)
`IPR2017-01393 (Patent 9,055,104 B2)
`IPR2017-01405 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`IPR2017-01406 (Patent 7,673,072 B2)
`IPR2017-01409 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)
`IPR2017-01410 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`In an e-mail message to the Board, Patent Owner (Alacritech, Inc.)
`requested a conference call seeking authorization to file a motion for
`additional discovery and associated supplemental briefing in light of the
`recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
`Applications In Internet Time v. RPX Corp., No. 2017-1698, 1028 WL
`3625165 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (the “AIIT” decision). Patent Owner
`alleges that the additional discovery is necessary to understand details of
`indemnification agreements between Petitioner Intel Corp. and other parties.
`We conducted a conference call on Monday, August 20, 2018,
`including: counsel for Petitioners Intel Corp. and Dell Inc., counsel for
`Patent Owner, and Judges Siu, Fishman, and Boudreau. In the conference
`call, Patent Owner argues the AIIT decision necessitates further discovery
`and briefing to determine the details of indemnification agreements between
`Intel Corp., Dell Inc., and any other potential real parties-in-interest or
`privies. Patent Owner admitted they did not know what was in the
`indemnification agreements and that it was possible that there could be
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01391 (Patent 7,237,036 B2)
`IPR2017-01392 (Patent 7,337,241 B2)
`IPR2017-01393 (Patent 9,055,104 B2)
`IPR2017-01405 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`IPR2017-01406 (Patent 7,673,072 B2)
`IPR2017-01409 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)
`IPR2017-01410 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)
`
`nothing of particular interest.2 Petitioner (Intel Corp.) responded, in essence,
`that there is nothing in the details of any indemnification agreements that
`affects these proceedings before the Board and that the existence of the
`indemnification agreement between Intel Corp. and Dell Inc. is readily
`admitted and of record. Counsel for Intel Corp. and Dell Inc. acknowledged
`that Dell Inc. is a real party-in-interest in these proceedings, at least by virtue
`of Dell Inc. joining as a party to these proceedings.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s request for additional discovery and
`associated supplemental briefing is denied.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Garland T. Stephens
`Adrian Percer
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`Adrian.percer@weil.com
`jason.lang@weil.com
`
`Patrick McPherson
`David T. Xue
`
`
`2 Patent Owner’s request is likely insufficient to meet the requirements of
`our Garmin factors that require more than such speculation to grant
`additional discovery. See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`2013 WL 11311697, at *3–4 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (precedential).
`However, as discussed infra, we need not analyze the Garmin factors
`because Patent Owner’s request is denied for other reasons.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01391 (Patent 7,237,036 B2)
`IPR2017-01392 (Patent 7,337,241 B2)
`IPR2017-01393 (Patent 9,055,104 B2)
`IPR2017-01405 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`IPR2017-01406 (Patent 7,673,072 B2)
`IPR2017-01409 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)
`IPR2017-01410 (Patent 8,131,880 B2)
`
`
`Karineh Khachatourian
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`dtxue@duanemorris.com
`karinehk@duanemorris.com
`
`Christopher TL Douglas
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`christopher.douglas@alston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James M. Glass
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Brian E. Mack
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Mark Lauer
`SILICON EDGE LAW GROUP LLP
`mark@siliconedgelaw.com
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket