`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2018-01722
`
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REFUND OF POST-INSTITUTION FEE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fee
`
`
`IPR2018-01722
`Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby files its request for a
`
`refund of the $15,000 post-institution fee that was previously paid.
`
`On September 14, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 B2 and paid the USPTO a total of $30,500, which
`
`included a $15,500 payment for the inter partes review request fee and a $15,000
`
`payment for the post-institution fee.
`
`The petition was granted a filing date of September 14, 2018. (Paper No. 3).
`
`On November 26, 2018 Petitioner filed an Unopposed Joint Motion to Dismiss
`
`Petition (Paper 6), authorized by the Board via email on November 16, 2018, to
`
`dismiss its IPR petition and terminate IPR2018-01722 regarding U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,525,484 B2 in which Patent Owner Tracbeam, LLC conferred. The Board
`
`subsequently entered an Order Dismissing the Proceeding (Paper 8), in which the
`
`Board terminated the proceeding as to all parties. Accordingly, the inter partes
`
`review was never instituted.
`
`Therefore, because the petition to institute inter partes review was filed after
`
`March 19, 2013, and the proceeding did not institute, Petitioner is entitled to request
`
`a refund of the post-institution fee that was previously paid. See e.g., 78 FR 4233
`
`(January 18, 2013) available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-
`
`18/pdf/2013-00819.pdf (“The entire post-institution fee would be returned to the
`
`petitioner if the Office does not institute a review.”).
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fee
`
`
`IPR2018-01722
`Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`Petitioner hereby requests a refund of the $15,000 post-institution fee
`
`previously paid by Petitioner. The refund may be deposited in Deposit Account No.
`
`08-1394 of Haynes and Boone, LLP under attorney reference number
`
`43614.320US01.
`
`Dated: January 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Reg. No. 32,271
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Tel: (214) 651-5533
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fee
`
`
`IPR2018-01722
`Patent No. 7,525,484
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`Tracbeam, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2018-01722
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that service
`was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`Date of service January 28, 2019
`
`Manner of service Electronic Service by E-Mail: Sean@Dovel.com;
`Ssereboff@socalip.com
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Request for Post-Institution Fees
`
`Persons served Sean A. Luner
`DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
`201 Santa Monica Blvd,, Suite 600
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`
`Steven C. Sereboff
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
`310 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 120
`Westlake Village, CA 91362
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
