Page 1 of2
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Thursday, December 27,2018 10:33 AM
`Lindner, David <dlindner@brinksgilson.com>
`Sobieraj, James <jsobieraj@brinksgilson.com>; Beaupre, Jon
`<jbeaupre@brinksgilson.com>; Chen, Gang <gchen@brinksgilson.com>;
`ZTE _FractusIPRs <ZTE _FractusIPRs@brinksgilson.com>; Patrick Finnan
`<PJF@usiplaw.com>; Jason Shapiro <js@usiplaw.com>; 'Mark J. DeBoy'
`<mjd@usiplaw.com>
`RE: ZTE v. Fractus: Petitioner's Request for Reply -- IPRs IPR2018-01451, -
`01455,-01456,-01457,and-01461
`
`Counsel, the panels for the respective proceedings have considered Petitioner's request to file Replies
`to the Preliminary Responses, and deny the requests.
`
`Best regards,
`Eric W. Hawthorne
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`From: Lindner, David <dlindner@brinksgilson.com>
`Sent: Friday, December 21,20183:09 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Sobieraj, James <jsobieraj@brinksgilson.com>; Lindner, David <dlindner@brinksgilson.com>; Beaupre, Jon
`<jbeaupre@brinksgilson.com>; Chen, Gang <gchen@brinksgilson.com>; ZTEJractuslPRs
`<ZTEJractusIPRs@brinksgilson.com>; Patrick Finnan <PJF@usiplaw.com>; Jason Shapiro <js@usiplaw.com>;
`'Mark J. DeBoy' <mjd@usiplaw.com>
`Subject: ZTE v. Fractus: Petitioner's Request for Reply --IPRs IPR2018-01451, -01455, -01456, -01457, and -
`01461
`
`Dear Your Honors,
`
`Petitioner hereby seeks leave from the Board to file a Reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response in each of
`IPR2018-01451, IPR2018-01455, IPR2018-01456, IPR2018-01457 and IPR2018-01461, pursuant to 37 CFR §§
`42.108(c), 42.23, and 42.24(c). The Reply would be limited to responding to Patent Owner's arguments that the
`petitions should be denied (1) under 35 U.S.c. §325(d) in view of Patent Owner's reliance on arguments related
`to different grounds and arguments related to prior art presented to the patent office by other parties in unrelated
`non-IPR proceedings that Petitioner could not have reasonably anticipated, and (2) 35 U.S.c. §314(a) in view of
`Patent Owner's reliance on the Board's decision inNHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8
`(Sept. 12,2018), that issued after Petitioner filed its petitions in the above-referenced matters, that the Office
`should decline institution because the IPRs are cumulative of the district court litigation.
`
`Given the "case-dispositive" nature of Patent Owner's arguments under §§ 314(a) and 325(d), and because the
`NHK Spring decision issued after the filing of Petitioner's petitions, there is good cause for Petitioner's Reply
`request. See, e.g., IPR2016-01357, Paper 10 at 2 (granting Petitioner a Reply to Patent Owner's Preliminary
`Response where patent owner sought denial of the petition under §325(d), recognizing the "case-dispositive
`nature of the issues.").
`
`file://law02/IawIBLOWBACKS%2020191$EDD/$NativeFiles/00100105120.ntv.htm
`ZTE v Fractus
`IPR2018-01461
`
`312812019
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1018.0001
`
`

`

`Page 2 of2
`
`Counsel for Petitioner sought Patent Owner's consent to this request, and consent was not provided. It is Patent
`Owner's position that good cause does not exist for replies because Petitioner did anticipate and address the issues
`under 35 U.S.c. § 325(d) in the petitions, and Petitioner should have anticipated Patent Owner's arguments under
`35 U.S.c. § 314 based on case law that predates the NHK decision and the petitions.
`
`Should the Board desire a teleconference to discuss this request, Counsel for the Petitioner and Patent Owner are
`both available Wednesday, December 26 10:00 am - 12:00 pm ET (9:00 am - 11:00 am CT) and Thursday,
`December 27 10:00 am - 12:00 pm ET (9:00 am - 11:00 am CT).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`David Lindner
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`David Lindner
`Intellectual Property Attorney
`312.222.8123 I Direct
`dlindner@brinksgilson.com
`Lindner Biogra phy
`www.brinksgilson.com
`
`Assistant: Sandra Gray
`312.245.3417 I sgray@brinksgilson.com
`BRINKS GILSON & LlONE
`NBC Tower - Suite 3600 I 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive I Chicago, IL 60611
`
`Please Note: This message is intended for the individual or entity named above and may constitute a privileged
`and confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use, or disclose
`this message. Please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete the message from your
`system. Thank you.
`
`file://law02/1awIBLOWBACKS%2020191$EDD/$NativeFiles/00100105120.ntv.htm
`ZTE v Fractus
`IPR2018-01461
`
`312812019
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1018.0002
`
`