`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`IPR2017-01572
`
`PATENT 8,646,529
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`(PUBLIC REDACTED COPY)
`
`
`
`This Opposition was authorized by the Board in a conference call on August
`
`9, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, there is no good cause to waive the three
`
`month response period for the Preliminary Response and the Board should deny
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Extend filed on August 14, 2017 (“Mot to Extend”).
`
`Petitioner elected to pursue inter partes review (IPR) of the - patents as
`
`provided for by statute—
`
`— Petitioner expended
`
`substantial resources to evaluate the- patents, review prior art, obtain expert
`
`declarations and to prepare and file the IPR petitions all within the span of 2.5
`
`months(—).' Any
`
`1 Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner“—
`
`-” is untrue Patent Owner admits—
`
`
`
`extension that potentially delays the progress of the IPR proceedings is prejudicial
`
`to Petitioner. Petitioner elected this forum to challenge the validity of the -
`
`patents because of its prescribed timetable—
`
`Despite Petitioner taking only 2.5 months to prepare and file the IPR
`
`petitions, Patent Owner asserts—
`
`—- Mot. to Extend at 2—
`
`I; compare with Ex. 1102 (FedEx receipt showing Patent Owner received
`
`service copies on June 15, 2017). Patent Owner has offered no good cause why it
`
`needs 4 months to prepare its preliminary response. Indeed, the Board has denied
`
`similar requests to extend the preliminary response date based on the amount of
`
`work required. See e. g., Google Inc. v Rockstar Consortium US LP, et. al.
`
`IPR2015-00079, Paper #6 at 3-5 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2014) (denying unopposed
`
`motion to extend preliminary response in case involving 17 IPRs and 7 patents).
`
`The only prejudice alleged by Patent Owner is“—
`
`—.” Mot. to Extend at 2. That is no prejudice at
`
`all. Patent Owner will still have had a full 3 months in which to review and
`
`——————
`
`-. Mot. to Extend at 3, FN 3.
`
`
`
`analyze the various cases—, which is a typical
`
`timeframe for a preliminary response, and more time than Petitioner took to
`
`prepare the petitions in the first place. Patent Owner seeks to exploit a month long
`
`delay between issuance of a filing notification in a subset of IPRs to gain an extra
`
`month in other IPRs. Patent Owner admits that it has received a “—
`
`— Moe. ee Extend ee 2. Heeveew
`
`an unexpected benefit for certain IPRs does not create prejudice for those that did
`
`not receive this benefit.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner asserts that“—
`
`Mot. to Extend at 3. This ignores Patent Owner’s—
`
`—- Ex- 1101- Not only should
`
`Patent Owner have considered that Petitioner may file IPRs on all the patents
`
`—. Petitioner actually informed Patent Owner on or
`
`about June 6, 2017 that it was going to do so.—
`
`—, Petitioner gave Patent Owner a week’s notice before the
`
`IPRs were filed.
`
`Good cause has not been shown to extend the dates as sought, Petitioner
`
`would be prejudiced, and Patent Owner—
`
`—. The Board should deny the Motion.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 16, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted
`
`by:
`
`/Heng A. Petri/
`Henry A. Petri, Jr., Reg. No.: 33,063
`James P. Murphy, Reg. No. 55,474
`POLSINELLI PC
`
`1000 Louisiana, Fifty-Third Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
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
