`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
`
`