`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: April 10, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZTE (USA), INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRACTUS S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-014511
`Patent 7,397,431 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KEVIN C. TROCK,
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, and AVELYN M. ROSS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Additional Briefing
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issue in the inter partes reviews listed in the
`Appendix. We therefore issue a single order to be filed in all of the cases.
`We note also that the panels for the cases differ, as also indicated in the
`Appendix. The parties are not authorized to use this style of caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01451
`Patent 7,397,431 B2
`
`
`On April 9, 2019, a conference call was held with counsel for the
`parties to discuss a Rehearing Request filed by Petitioner in each of the
`proceedings identified in the Appendix. Paper 13.2 A court reporter was
`present on the call, and Petitioner, who retained the reporter, will file a
`transcript of the call as an exhibit in each of the proceedings. Because a
`transcript of the call will be made of record, we provide only a brief
`summary of the issues discussed.
`The call was held in response to an email request by Patent Owner for
`authorization to file Oppositions to the Rehearing Requests. Patent Owner
`contends that good cause exists to do so because arguments raised by
`Petitioner in the Rehearing Requests could and should have been made in
`the respective Petitions. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request for
`additional briefing, but agreed during the call that an opportunity to reply to
`Patent Owner’s Oppositions would satisfy its concerns.
`Under the specific circumstances of these proceedings, the panels
`determine that additional briefing would be beneficial and likely helpful in
`reaching a decision on the Rehearing Requests. Because Petitioner has the
`burden of showing that the Decisions denying institution in these
`proceedings should be modified, it is appropriate to afford Petitioner an
`opportunity to reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Petitioner’s Reply will be
`subject to the limitations in 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Citations are to IPR2018-01451. Similar papers have been filed in each of
`the proceedings.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01451
`Patent 7,397,431 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a respective
`Opposition to the Rehearing Request filed in each of the proceedings
`identified in the Appendix, by April 24, 2019, limited to five pages; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a
`respective Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition in each of the proceedings
`identified in the Appendix, by May 8, 2019, limited to five pages.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01451
`Patent 7,397,431 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,397,431 B2
`7,394,432 B2
`8,941,541 B2
`8,976,069 B2
`9,054,421 B2
`9,240,632 B2
`9,362,617 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX
`
`Inter Partes Review
`IPR2018-01451
`IPR2018-01455
`IPR2018-01456
`IPR2018-01457
`IPR2018-01461
`IPR2018-01462
`IPR2018-01463
`
`Panel
`Boucher, Trock, Hudalla
`Boucher, Trock, Hudalla
`Boucher, Trock, Hudalla
`Boucher, Trock, Hudalla
`Boucher, Trock, Hudalla
`Boucher, Hudalla, Ross
`Boucher, Hudalla, Ross
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01451
`Patent 7,397,431 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James Sobieraj
`Jon Beaupré
`David Lindner
`Gang Chen
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`jsobieraj@brinksgilson.com
`jbeaupre@brinksgilson.com
`dlindner@brinksgilson.com
`gchen@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason Shapiro
`Patrick Finnan
`Mark DeBoy
`EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC
`js@usiplaw.com
`pjf@usiplaw.com
`mjd@usiplaw.com
`
`5
`
`
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
