`
`FW: IPR2018-00044: Unified Patents v. Vilox: Authorization to file Reply to Patent
`Owner's Preliminary Response
`
`From: Kelton, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Kelton@haynesboone.com]
`Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 5:50 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: harrop@vapatent.com; McCombs, David L. <David.McCombs@haynesboone.com>; O'Dell, David M.
`<David.Odell@haynesboone.com>; Jonathan Stroud (jonathan@unifiedpatents.com) <jonathan@unifiedpatents.com>;
`Roshan Mansinghani <roshan@unifiedpatents.com>
`Subject: IPR2018‐00044: Unified Patents v. Vilox: Authorization to file Reply to Patent Owner's Preliminary Response
`
`To the Board:
`
`In IPR2018‐00044, Petitioner Unified Patents respectfully requests leave under 37 CFR 42.108(c) to file a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`
`Patent Owner asserts in its Preliminary Response that the named inventor conceived of the claimed subject matter
`before the priority date of Petitioner’s cited art (Excel) and reduced the subject matter to practice. Because Patent
`Owner’s evidence on this issue was not available to Petitioner when the IPR petition was filed, there is good cause for
`authorizing Petitioner to file a Reply that identifies deficiencies in Patent Owner’s evidence. Furthermore, there is good
`cause for this request because focused briefing by Unified Patents can assist the Board in efficiently identifying claim
`limitations for which Patent Owner’s swear‐behind evidence is deficient.
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel has indicated that it opposes this request.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Thomas Kelton
`Counsel for Petitioner Unified Patents Inc.
`haynesboone
`Thomas Kelton
`Partner
`thomas.kelton@haynesboone.com
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2505 North Plano Road
`Suite 4000
`Richardson, TX 75082-4101
`
`(t) 972.739.6923
`(f) 972.692.9230
`(m) 512.297.0363
`
`vCard | Bio | Website
`
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is confidential,
`may be privileged and should be read or retained only by the intended
`recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please
`immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system.
`
`1
`
`
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
