`
`Paper: 16
`Entered: May 2, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01799
`Patent 8,199,747 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01799
`Patent 8,199,747 B2
`
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S.
`Apr. 24, 2018). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one
`of the challenged claims of the ’747 patent is unpatentable. See Paper 9,
`23–30, 36. We modify our institution decision to institute on all of the
`challenged claims on the ground presented in the Petition.
`Under the Scheduling Order entered in this case, Patent Owner’s
`Response to the Petition and any motion to amend the patent are currently
`due on May 7, 2018. Paper 10, 8 (“DUE DATE 1”). In view of the present
`Order, we hereby extend that due date by one month, to June 7, 2018. The
`parties shall confer to discuss the impact, if any, of this Order on other dates
`in the current schedule. In that regard, the parties are reminded that they
`may stipulate to further changes to DUE DATES 1 through 5, subject to the
`limitations set forth in the Scheduling Order, without the need for additional
`authorization from the panel, provided, however, that a notice of any such
`stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly
`filed. See id. at 2. If, after conferring, the parties are unable to reach
`agreement or wish to otherwise change the schedule, the parties must, within
`one week of the date of this Order, request a conference call with the panel
`to seek authorization for such changes.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01799
`Patent 8,199,747 B2
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that our institution decision is modified to include review
`of all challenged claims on the ground presented in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that DUE DATE 1 set forth in the Scheduling
`Order is extended to June 7, 2018; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine whether they desire any changes to the schedule, and, if so,
`shall either file notice of any stipulated changes or request a conference call
`with the panel within one week of the date of this Order to resolve any
`disagreement or to seek authorization for changes not otherwise authorized
`under the Scheduling Order.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01799
`Patent 8,199,747 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip W. Citroën
`Michael A. Wolfe
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`michaelwolfe@paulhastings.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Ryan Loveless
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`4
`
`
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
