`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 7
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`____________
`
`Mailed: October 4, 2018
`
`
`Before Lawrence J. Banks, Trial Paralegal.
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION
`AND
`TIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`The petition for inter partes review filed in the above proceeding has
`been accorded the filing date of August 21, 2018.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent No. 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner may file a preliminary response to the petition no later
`than three months from the date of this notice. The preliminary response is
`limited to setting forth the reasons why the requested review should not be
`instituted. Patent Owner may also file an election to waive the preliminary
`response to expedite the proceeding. For more information, please consult
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012),
`which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
`Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory
`notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of
`the petition.
`The parties are encouraged to use the heading on the first page of this
`Notice for all future filings in the proceeding.
`The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of
`counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause. The parties are
`authorized to file motions for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c). Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order --
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639,
`Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.”
`The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the
`Patent Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web
`site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB. To file documents, users must first
`obtain a user ID and password by registering with PRPS. Information
`regarding how to register with and use PRPS is available at the Board Web
`site.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent No. 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please contact
`Lawrence J. Banks at 571-272-3450 or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at
`571-272-7822.
`
`PETITIONER:
`Adam P. Seitz
`Paul R. Hart
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`Paul.Hart@eriseip.com
`Adam.Seitz@eriseip.com
`
`Stephen S. Korniczky
`Martin R. Bader
`Nam H. Kim
`Ericka Jacobs Schulz
`Eric K. Gill egill@sheppardmullin.com
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`nkim@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`egill@sheppardmullin.com
`Bing Ai
`Vinay P. Sathe
`Babak Tehranchi
`Kevin J. Patariu
`John P. Schnurer
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`VSathe@perkinscoie.com
`BTehranchi@perkinscoie.com
`KPatariu@perkinscoie.com
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent No. 6,611,676 B2
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Bryan J. Vogel
`Derrick J. Carman
`Stephanie A. Diehl
`Li Zhu
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`CMorton@RobinsKaplan.com
`BVogel@RobinsKaplan.com
`DCarman@RobinsKaplan.com
`SDiehl@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent No. 6,611,676 B2
`
`NOTICE CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
`(ADR)
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) strongly encourages
`parties who are considering settlement to consider alternative dispute
`resolution as a means of settling the issues that may be raised in an AIA trial
`proceeding. Many AIA trials are settled prior to a Final Written Decision.
`Those considering settlement may wish to consider alternative dispute
`resolution techniques early in a proceeding to produce a quicker, mutually
`agreeable resolution of a dispute or to at least narrow the scope of matters in
`dispute. Alternative dispute resolution has the potential to save parties time
`and money.
`
`Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual
`property field, offer alternative dispute resolution services. Listed below are
`the names and addresses of several such organizations. The listings are
`provided for the convenience of parties involved in cases before the PTAB;
`the PTAB does not sponsor or endorse any particular organization’s
`alternative dispute resolution services. In addition, consideration may be
`given to utilizing independent alternative dispute resolution firms. Such
`firms may be located through a standard keyword Internet search.
`
`
`CPR
`INSTITUTE
`FOR DISPUTE
`RESOLUTION
`
`AMERICAN
`INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY
`LAW
`ASSOCIATION
`(AIPLA)
`Telephone:
`(703) 415‐0780
`Fax: (703) 415‐0786
`241 18th Street, South,
`Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22202
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 949‐6490
`Fax: (212) 949‐8859
`
`575 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`
`www.aipla.org
`
`AMERICAN
`ARBITRATIO
`N
`ASSOCIATIO
`N (AAA)
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 484‐3266
`Fax: (212) 307‐4387
`140 West 51st
`Street
`New York, NY
`10020
`www.adr.org
`
`WORLD
`INTELLECTUA
`L PROPERTY
`ORGANIZATI
`ON (WIPO)
`Telephone:
`41 22 338 9111
`Fax: 41 22 733 5428
`34, chemin des
`Colombettes
`CH‐1211 Geneva 20,
`Switzerland
`www.wipo.int
`
`AMERICAN
`BAR
`ASSOCIATION
`(ABA)
`
`Telephone :
`(202) 662‐1000
`N/A
`1050 Connecticut Ave,
`NW
`Washington D.C. 20036
`
`www.americanbar.org
`
`www.cpradr.org
`
`If parties to an AIA trial proceeding consider using alternative dispute
`
`resolution, the PTAB would like to know whether the parties ultimately
`decided to engage in alternative dispute resolution and the reasons why or
`why not. If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the
`PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent No. 6,611,676 B2
`
`mediation, etc.) was used and the general result. Such a statement from the
`parties is not required but would be helpful to the PTAB in assessing the
`value of alternative dispute resolution to parties involved in AIA trial
`proceedings. To report an experience with ADR, please forward a summary
`of
`the
`particulars
`to
`the
`following
`address:
`PTAB_ADR_Comments@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`