`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`
`Entered: October 24, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2018-01083
`IPR2018-010841
`Patent 9,445,251
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`On October 18, 2018, Google, LLC (“Petitioner”) sent an e-mail to
`the Board requesting permission to file a reply to AGIS Software
`
`1 Unless expressly authorized to do so, the parties may not use this style of
`caption.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01083
`IPR2018-01084
`Patent 9,445,251
`
`Development, LLC’s (“Patent Owner”) Preliminary Response in each
`proceeding in the above caption to address an assertion of “lack of candor.”
`Patent Owner opposes.
`In the Preliminary Response for IPR2018-01083, Patent Owner
`asserts Petitioner has not satisfied its duty of candor under 37 C.F.R. § 42.11
`and § 11.18(b)(2) on grounds that Petitioner and its real parties in interest
`knowingly advanced contradictory claim construction positions here and in
`related district court proceedings. See, e.g., IPR2018-01083, Paper 7, 13–
`15. Patent Owner argues the Board should therefore deny the Petition “in its
`entirety.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner, however, does not make a similar
`allegation in the Preliminary Response for IPR2018-01084. See generally
`IPR2018-01084, Paper 7.
`We determine that under the circumstances presented here, good
`cause exists with regard to IPR2018-01083 and we, therefore, authorize
`Petitioner to file a reply in this proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`As to IPR2018-01084, because Patent Owner does not allege “lack of
`candor,” good cause has not been shown to exist. Therefore, we do not
`authorize Petitioner to file a reply in this proceeding.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a reply under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(c) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2018-01083 is
`granted;
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a reply under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(c) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2018-01084 is
`denied;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01083
`IPR2018-01084
`Patent 9,445,251
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the reply is not to exceed three (3) pages,
`and must be filed no later than November 1, 2018; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the reply is limited to addressing
`assertions and arguments in the Preliminary Response relating to the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.11 and § 11.18(b)(2) and Petitioner’s duty of
`candor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01083
`IPR2018-01084
`Patent 9,445,251
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No. 36,013)
`Ryan C. Richardson (Reg. No. 67,254)
`Dohm Chankong (Reg. No. 70,524)
`Jonathan Tuminaro
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.
`rsokohl-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`rricharson-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`dchankong-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`jtuminar-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Enrique W. Iturralde (Reg. No. 72,883)
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`eiturralde@brownrudnick.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
