`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 22
` Filed: July 11, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB., CANON INC.,
`and CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2019-00235
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00235
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`On July 1, 2019, Petitioner Canon Inc. requested Precedential
`Opinion Panel review of our Decision not to institute inter partes review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,912 (Paper 19, “Decision”). Ex. 3002. This request is
`currently under review. Paper 21.
`On July 1, 2019, Axis Communications AB., Canon Inc., and Canon
`U.S.A., Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a request for rehearing of our Decision.
`Paper 20. On July 9, 2019, Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress Corporation
`(“Patent Owner”) requested authorization to submit a reply to Petitioner’s
`request for rehearing. Ex. 3003. Patent Owner states that its reply will
`address “newly-raised arguments” and “correct several inaccuracies in
`Petitioners’ request for rehearing.” Id. Patent Owner further states that the
`points it seeks to raise in its requested reply “could also explain why
`Precedential Opinion Panel review, which Petitioners have also requested, is
`not necessary.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a reply to Petitioner’s
`Request for Rehearing is denied. If the Precedential Opinion Panel grants
`review, the Precedential Opinion Panel will provide its own guidance as to
`what additional briefing is authorized. If the Precedential Opinion Panel
`declines review, however, Patent Owner may at that time renew its request
`to file a reply to Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing.
`In the meantime, Patent Owner may submit an email stating why it
`opposes Precedential Opinion Panel review to
`Precedential_Opinion_Panel_review@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00235
`Patent 7,868,912 B2 & C1
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a
`reply to Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied without prejudice;
`FURTHER ORDERED that if the Precedential Opinion Panel
`declines review of our Decision, Patent Owner may at that time renew its
`request to file a reply to Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing;
`FURTHER ORDERED Patent Owner may submit an email stating
`why it opposes Precedential Opinion Panel review to
`Precedential_Opinion_Panel_review@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Joseph Calvaruso
`Richard Martinelli
`ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`jvcptabdocket@orrick.com
`rfmptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eugene Goryunov
`Michael Dokhanchy
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`egoryunov@kirkland.com
`reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com
`
`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
