`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 59
`Entered: August 19, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`
`A conference call was held with the parties on August 15, 2019.1
`Two issues were discussed.
`First, in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(e), Google notified the
`Board by email correspondence on August 13, 2019 that a deposition in a
`foreign language is to take place on August 19, 2019 with an interpreter.
`The deposition is expected to take place via video conference, with the
`witness located in Taipei, Taiwan. We directed the parties to orders in
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. ISIS Innovation Ltd., Case IPR2012-00022, Papers 55
`and 67, for guidance regarding the conduct of depositions in a foreign
`language with an interpreter.
`Second, Google contends that portions of CyWee’s Surreplies
`(Paper 48 in both proceedings) contain new arguments that could have been
`made in the Patent Owner Response. CyWee responds that the arguments
`are properly responsive to arguments made in the respective Replies, and
`notes that objections have been filed by Google (Paper 49 in both
`proceedings). We deny Google’s request for authorization to file a Motion
`
`
`1 When a roll call was taken of all individuals on the call, no one identified
`as representing joined petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Representatives of all other parties identified themselves as present on the
`call. Because Samsung was joined to these proceedings with the
`understanding that it is limited to an “understudy” role, we determined that
`we could proceed with the call without a representative of Samsung. See
`IPR2018-01257, Paper 36, 31–32. In particular, Samsung’s participation in
`these proceedings is subject to its agreement “to be bound by any agreement
`between Patent Owner and [Google] concerning discovery and/or
`depositions.” Id. at 32. Both Patent Owner and Google were afforded an
`explicit opportunity to object to proceeding with the call without the
`presence of a Samsung representative, and neither objected.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`to Strike portions of the Replies, but will hear argument from the parties on
`the issue at the oral hearing.
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Andrew S. Baluch
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`James Sobieraj
`Yuezhong Feng
`Andrea Shoffstall
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`jsobieraj@brinksgilson.com
`yfen@brinksgilson.com
`ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Collin Park
`Andrew Devkar
`Jeremy Peterson
`Adam Brooke
`MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Collin.park@morganlewis.com
`Andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`jpeterson@morganlewis.com
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`
`Kristopher Reed
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay P. Kesan
`DIMURO GINSBERG PC-DGKEYIP GROUP
`jkesan@dimuro.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
