`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 15, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UBISOFT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01839
`Patent 6,324,578 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01839
`Patent 6,324,578 B1
`
`On December 15, 2017, a conference call was held involving counsel
`for the respective parties and Judges Medley, Benoit, and Kaiser. The
`purpose of the conference call was for Petitioner to seek authorization to file
`a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Patent Owner opposed.
`During the conference call, Petitioner argued that we should authorize
`a reply to address a claim construction determination made in IPR2017-
`01290 (“the 1290 IPR”) with respect to the term “installing,” because such
`determination is relevant to the construction for the term “installing” for the
`instant proceeding.1 In particular, Petitioner contended that there is good
`cause for considering a reply, because Petitioner could not have anticipated
`the panel’s construction for the term “installing” in the 1290 IPR.
`Our rules do not automatically authorize a petitioner to file a reply to
`a preliminary response. Rather, a petitioner seeking leave to file a reply
`must make a showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Based on the
`facts of this case and the arguments presented during the call, including
`Petitioner’s request to file a reply to in essence respond to a claim
`construction determination made in a different case and not for the purpose
`of responding to arguments made in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`the panel disagrees that further briefing would be helpful or is warranted
`under the good cause standard. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s
`request to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is denied.
`
`
`1 During the call, we asked counsel for Petitioner how the patent involved in
`the 1290 IPR is relevant to the patent involved in this case. Petitioner stated
`that the applications that led to the patent involved in the 1290 IPR and the
`patent involved in this proceeding were filed on the same day, but
`acknowledged that the specifications of the two patents are not the same.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01839
`Patent 6,324,578 B1
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a reply to Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response is denied.
`
`
`Petitioner:
`Eric A. Buresh
`Mark C. Lang
`Kathleen D. Fitterling
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`kathleen.fitterling@eriseip.com
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
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
