`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: March 20, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., and
`VADATA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`
`On March 13, 2019, Judges Deshpande, Arbes, and Zado held a
`
`conference call with Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and
`
`VADATA, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`(“Patent Owner”). Petitioner requested the conference call to seek
`
`authorization to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to
`
`address Patent Owner’s construction of the claim term “data prefetch unit.”
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s request.
`
`Petitioner does not propose a construction for “data prefetch unit” in
`
`the Petition. See, e.g., Paper 1, 6–8 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). However,
`
`Petitioner provides the parties’ proposed constructions in a district court
`
`proceeding. Id. In that proceeding, Petitioner stated the term “data prefetch
`
`unit” does not need construction, and that it is part of a larger phrase that is
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph, and also is indefinite. Id. at 6–
`
`7. Patent Owner proposed the term should be construed as “a functional unit
`
`that retireives computational data needed to complete the algorithm
`
`instantiated on the reconfigurable processor during processing.” Id. at 6. In
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes a
`
`construction that differs from the construction it proposed in district court.
`
`Paper 20 (“Preliminary Response” or “Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner
`
`proposes to construe the term to mean “a functional unit that moves data
`
`between members of a memory hierarchy. The movement may be as simple
`
`as a copy, or as complex as an indirect indexed strided copy into a unit stride
`
`memory.” Id. at 16.
`
`
`
`“A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary
`
`response in accordance with [37 C.F.R.] §§42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`request must make a showing of good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). After
`
`considering the parties’ arguments during the call, we are not persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has shown good cause to file a reply. Petitioner has not shown
`
`that it could not have foreseen Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which
`
`is taken directly from the specification of the challenged patent, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,149,867 B2. See Ex. 1001, 5:18, 5:40–43 (“1. Definitions: . . . Data
`
`prefetch Unit—is a functional unit that moves data between members of a
`
`memory hierarchy. The movement may be as simple as a copy, or as
`
`complex as an indirect indexed strided copy into a unit stride memory.”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply is denied.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00103
`Patent 7,149,867 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Hadden
`dhadden-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`Saina Shamilov
`sshamilov-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Alfonso Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`Joseph DePumpo
`jdepumpo@shorechan.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
