throbber
Paper 17
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: April 22, 2020
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES)
`INC., AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2019-01278 (Patent 8,020,083 B1)
`IPR2019-01279 (Patent 8,510,407 B1)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JAMES A. WORTH, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`Patent Owner filed, on behalf of both Patent Owner and Petitioner, a
`Notice of Joint Stipulation to modify certain due dates in each of the above-
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. The parties are not
`authorized to use this caption for subsequent papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01278 (Patent 8,020,083 B1)
`IPR2019-01279 (Patent 8,510,407 B1)
`
`identified proceedings (IPR2019-01278, Paper 17; IPR2019-01279, Paper
`16) (“Notices”)).
`In the Scheduling Order for each of the proceedings, we indicated that
`“[t]he parties may stipulate different dates for . . . the portion of DUE DATE
`3 related to Patent Owner’s sur-reply” but that “[t]he parties may not
`stipulate to a different date for the portion of DUE DATE 3 related to Patent
`Owner’s reply to an opposition to amend (or Patent Owner’s revised motion
`to amend) without prior authorization from the Board.” IPR2019-01278,
`Paper 9, 6; IPR2019-01279, Paper 8, 6. The Notices purport to stipulate to a
`change in the date for the portion of DUE DATE 3 related to Patent Owner’s
`reply to an opposition to amend (or Patent Owner’s revised motion to
`amend.) IPR2019-01278, Paper 17, 2–3; IPR2019-01279, Paper 16, 2–3.
`However, as no authorization to move the due date for Patent Owner’s reply
`to an opposition to amend (or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend) has
`been requested or granted in either proceeding, this due date cannot be
`changed by stipulation in either proceeding.
`We note that the filed Notice of Joint Stipulation in IPR2019-01278
`moved DUE DATE 1 to May 6, 2020. IPR2019-01278, Paper 17, 2–3.
`Because this order issues on the original DUE DATE 1 in that proceeding,
`we move DUE DATE 1 as per the Parties’ apparent agreement. We further
`note that the filed Notice of Joint Stipulation in IPR2019-01279 moved DUE
`DATE 1 to April 27, 2020. IPR2019-01278, Paper 17, 2–3. Because this
`order issues after the original DUE DATE 1 in that proceeding, we move
`DUE DATE 1 as per the Parties’ apparent agreement. However, with
`respect to the balance of the stipulated changes to the Scheduling Orders in
`IPR2019-01278 and IPR2019-01279, we reset the due dates to the original
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01278 (Patent 8,020,083 B1)
`IPR2019-01279 (Patent 8,510,407 B1)
`
`due dates from the respective Scheduling Order in each case, as it is unclear
`to what extent the agreement between the parties relied on the change to the
`due date for Patent Owner’s reply to an opposition to amend (or Patent
`Owner’s revised motion to amend). IPR2019-01278, Paper 9, 6; IPR2019-
`01279, Paper 8, 6.
`The parties are directed to meet and confer and to file, in each case,
`within seven days of this order, a revised joint stipulation on due dates
`pursuant to the requirements of the Scheduling Order issued in each case.
`“In stipulating to move any due dates in the scheduling order, the parties
`must be cognizant that the Board requires approximately 4 weeks after the
`filing of an opposition to the MTA (or the due date for the opposition, if
`none is filed) for the Board to issue its preliminary guidance, if requested by
`patent owner.” Notice Regarding a New Pilot Program Concerning Motion
`to Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings under the America
`Invents Act before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 84 Fed. Reg. 9497,
`9500 (Mar. 15, 2019); see IPR2019-01278, Paper 9, 6; IPR2019-01279,
`Paper 8, 6. In order to move the due date for the Patent Owner’s reply to an
`opposition to amend (or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend) in either
`case, we reiterate that authorization from the Board would be required.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the due dates for the filings by the parties in
`IPR2019-01278 are the due dates set forth in the Scheduling Order (Paper
`9)in that proceeding, with the exception of DUE DATE 1, which is changed
`to May 6, 2020;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the due dates for the filings by the parties
`in IPR2019-01279 are the due dates as set forth in the Scheduling Order
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01278 (Patent 8,020,083 B1)
`IPR2019-01279 (Patent 8,510,407 B1)
`
`(Paper 8) in that proceeding, with the exception of DUE DATE 1, which is
`changed to April 27, 2020;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties meet and confer to determine
`any joint stipulation to modify due dates in conformance with the
`Scheduling Order in each of IPR2019-01278 and IPR2019-01279, and file
`any notice of the stipulation, in each proceeding, specifically identifying the
`proposed changed due dates, within seven days of this order.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01278 (Patent 8,020,083 B1)
`IPR2019-01279 (Patent 8,510,407 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`John C. Alemanni
`Matthew J. Meyer
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mmeyer@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`HUDNELL LAW GROUP P.C.
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`
`
`5
`
`

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