`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: September 29, 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
`
`
`On September 25, 2020, we held a teleconference in the above-
`captioned proceedings. Judges Worth, Hagy, and Fenick participated, along
`
`
`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)
`
`with Petitioner’s counsel John Alemanni and Patent Owner’s counsel Perry
`Goldberg.
`Petitioner requested authorization to file, in each proceeding, a motion
`to strike Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply. Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply in each
`proceeding references a Supplementary Declaration of Dr. Earl Sacerdoti.
`IPR2019-01278, Paper 28; IPR2019-01279, Paper 28. These supplementary
`declarations were filed, in each proceeding, contemporaneously with the
`filing of the Sur-Reply. IPR2019-01278, Ex. 2007; IPR2019-01279,
`Ex. 2007. Petitioner argued that the new evidence and references to it are
`impermissible, citing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide November 20192 (“Consolidated TPG”). The Consolidated
`TPG states that “[t]he sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence
`other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply
`witness.” Consolidated TPG, 72. Patent Owner argued that the inclusion in
`the Sur-Reply in each proceeding of citations to the Supplementary
`Declaration of Dr. Earl Sacerdoti was necessary to address the Petitioner’s
`Reply and that the statement in the Trial Practice Guide is not controlling,
`citing Belden v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`In light of the parties’ arguments, on the teleconference, we advised
`the parties that we would authorize Petitioner to file a motion to strike in
`each proceeding, and what the dates and page limits would be for those
`motions and any oppositions. This Order confirms that authorization.
`
`
`2 Available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01278 (Patent 8,020,083 B1)
`IPR2019-01279 (Patent 8,510,407 B1)
`
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that, in each proceeding, Patent Owner may file a motion
`to strike Patent Owner’s sur-reply, by October 1, 2020, limited to four pages;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in each proceeding, Petitioner may file
`an opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to strike, by October 7, 2020,
`limited to four pages.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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
`
`Perry Goldberg
`PROGRESS LLP
`goldberg@progressllp.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
