`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 69
`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
`
`