throbber
From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Trials
`John Edmonds; Trials
`Steve Schlather; Pearce Jr., T. Vann; Medina, David R.; Jennifer Bailey; Adam P. Seitz; Karineh Khachatourian;
`David Xue
`RE: IPR2019-00131: Patent Owner"s Request for authorization to file motion to strike
`Wednesday, December 4, 2019 4:28:41 PM
`image002.png
`
`Pursuant 37 C.F.R. Section 42.21, each party is required to file a notice regarding the specific relief it
`requests and the basis for the requested relief. The notice shall be filed on or before December 9, 2019.
`Once the notices are received, the Board will determine whether or not motions to strike will be
`authorized and, if authorized, set a briefing schedule.
`
`Patent Owner is further required to explain the timing of its request to file a motion to strike:
`
`Generally, authorization to file a motion to strike should be requested within one week of the
`allegedly improper submission. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 81 (November 2019).
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`Direct: 571-272-5366
`
`From: John Edmonds <jedmonds@ip-lit.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 12:08 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Steve Schlather <sschlather@ip-lit.com>; Pearce Jr., T. Vann <vpearce@orrick.com>; Medina,
`David R. <dmedina@orrick.com>; Jennifer Bailey <jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com>; Adam P. Seitz
`<adam.seitz@eriseip.com>; Karineh Khachatourian <karinehk@rimonlaw.com>; David Xue
`<david.xue@rimonlaw.com>
`Subject: IPR2019-00131: Patent Owner's Request for authorization to file motion to strike
`
`Dear Board,
`
`Patent Owner Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin”) had asked Panasonic to make a joint request for
`a call on this subject, but Panasonic declined. Cellspin also requests authorization to file a
`motion to strike. Cellspin’s motion would ask the Board to strike the second expert
`declaration that Panasonic submitted with its reply (Ex. 1024) as well as Exhibits 1026-1028
`and 1030-1031 also submitted with Panasonic’s reply. The basis for striking includes that the
`foregoing have improper new evidence, new theories, new approaches, and/or new issues on
`Reply, including in violation of 37 CFR § 42.23(b). For example and without limitation,
`Panasonic’s Reply Brief and exhibits assert entirely new obviousness theories, where
`obviousness was not even a basis in Panasonic’s petition or in the Board’s institution
`decision. In addition, Cellspin’s motion would ask the Board to strike Panasonic’s reply brief,
`in whole or in part, including based upon the foregoing.
`
`Cellspin has conferred with Panasonic, who opposes this request. Apparently there was some
`
`

`

`time zone confusion about the parties’ mutual availability for a call, should the Board wish to
`schedule one. The parties are mutually available on Monday, December 9 at or after 1 pm ET,
`or after 11 AM ET on Tuesday, December 10.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`John Edmonds
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, Texas 77003
`713.364.5291
`355 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`213.973.7846
`jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`
`From: Pearce Jr., T. Vann <vpearce@orrick.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:42 AM
`To: trials@uspto.gov
`Cc: John Edmonds <jedmonds@ip-lit.com>; Steve Schlather <sschlather@ip-lit.com>; Medina, David
`R. <dmedina@orrick.com>; Jennifer Bailey <jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com>; Adam P. Seitz
`<adam.seitz@eriseip.com>; Karineh Khachatourian <karinehk@rimonlaw.com>; David Xue
`<david.xue@rimonlaw.com>
`Subject: IPR2019-00131: Request for authorization to file motion to strike
`Dear Board,
`
`Petitioners Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
`respectfully request authorization to file a motion to strike. The motion would
`ask the Board to strike the second expert declaration that Patent Owner
`submitted with its sur-reply (Ex. 2026) as well as Exhibits 2027-2029 and 2031-33
`also submitted by Patent Owner with its sur-reply. See Section II.I of the Trial
`Practice Guide Update (August 2018) (page 14). In addition, the motion would
`ask the Board to strike Patent Owner’s sur-reply brief in whole or in part based
`on its citation to these exhibits and circumventing the word count limit. See
`Section II.A.3. of the Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018) (page 7) (citing
`Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 600 F. App’x 774 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`Petitioners have conferred with Patent Owner, who opposes this request. Should
`the Board wish to schedule a conference call, counsel for both sides are available
`during the afternoon of Monday December 9, or after 11 AM on Tuesday,
`December 10.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Vann Pearce
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation
`
`

`

`of North America
`
`Vann Pearce
`Partner, Intellectual Property
`
`Orrick
`Washington, DC
`T +1-202-339-8696
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a
`communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying
`of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message
`from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy
`policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket