`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Date: November 25, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BLOOMREACH, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Petitioner’s Request to File a Reply
`to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`On November 4, 2019, the Board received an email from Petitioner
`
`requesting authorization to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Petitioner requested authorization to
`
`respond to Patent Owner’s proposed constructions and related arguments
`
`regarding the phrases “jumping to the at least one node,” “jumping to the
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379
`
`vertex,” and “jumping.” Petitioner’s email indicated Patent Owner opposes
`
`Petitioner’s request.
`
`In the Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”), Petitioner proposed a construction for
`
`the term “jumping,” but did not propose explicit constructions for “jumping
`
`to the at least one node” or “jumping to the vertex.” See Pet. 10‒15. In
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposed the same
`
`construction for “jumping” as Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 2 n.1. Patent Owner
`
`also proposed explicitly construing “jumping to the [at least one
`
`node/vertex]” to mean “the system jumping to the [at least one
`
`node/vertex].” Id.
`
`On November 18, 2019, Judges McNeill, McGraw, and Quinn
`
`initiated a conference call regarding Petitioner’s request. On the line for
`
`Patent Owner was Isaac Rabicoff. Petitioner failed to attend the scheduled
`
`conference call.
`
`Although Board rules do not specifically authorize a reply to a Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, a Petitioner may seek leave to file such a
`
`reply, and any such request must make a showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c). Based on the totality of the circumstances, we are not persuaded
`
`that Petitioner has shown good cause for filing a reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Authorization to File a Reply
`
`to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is denied.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01304
`Patent 7,231,379
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Michael Lyons
`Ahren Hsu-Hoffman
`MORGAN LEWIS
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`michael.lyons@morganlewis.com
`ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Isaac Rabicoff
`RABICOFF LAW
`isaac@rabilaw.com
`
`3
`
`