`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: February 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SLING TV L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 4, 2020, the Board instituted trial in this proceeding.
`Paper 7 (Institution Decision). The accompanying Scheduling Order states,
`“Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if requested,
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`will be held at the Dallas, Texas, USPTO Regional Office.” Paper 8, 5
`(“Scheduling Order”). The Scheduling Order further states, “The parties
`may request that the oral argument instead be held at the San Jose,
`California, USPTO Regional Office,” and it authorizes the parties to “jointly
`file a paper stating their preference for the hearing location within one
`month of this Order.” Id. at 5–6.
`On February 10, 2020, Petitioner filed a paper—expressly
`acknowledging that it was understood not to be joined by Patent Owner—
`requesting that oral argument be held at the Silicon Valley USPTO Regional
`Office in San Jose, California. Paper 9 (“Request”). Later that day, Patent
`Owner contacted the Board via email to confirm that it did not join the
`Request, to contend that Petitioner’s unilateral filing of the Request was
`improper, and to request “that the Board disregard or otherwise grant Patent
`Owner leave to move to strike” the Request.
`Petitioner’s unilateral Request was not authorized by either the
`Scheduling Order or the panel. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b) (“A motion will
`not be entered without Board authorization.”); see also id. at § 42.2
`(“Motion means a request for relief other than by petition.”). Accordingly,
`we disregard the Request, and we exercise our discretion to expunge the
`unauthorized paper (Paper 9). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.7(a) (“The Board may
`expunge any paper . . . that is not authorized under this part or in a Board
`order . . . .”).
`We note, however, that under current Board procedures, Petitioner
`will have an opportunity later in this proceeding to request that its counsel
`appear in San Jose for oral argument. In particular, the panel will issue a
`hearing order, if the parties request an oral hearing, and hearing orders
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`currently provide authorization to each party to request that its counsel be
`permitted to present argument remotely from an alternative USPTO location,
`such as the Silicon Valley Office in San Jose, California. Moreover, even if
`the hearing order in this proceeding does not expressly include such an
`authorization, Petitioner may contact the panel promptly after receiving the
`hearing order to seek authorization to submit such a request.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that no change is made to the Board’s Scheduling Order
`(Paper 8), and accordingly, oral argument, if requested, will still be held at
`the Dallas, Texas, USPTO Regional Office, unless the Board notifies the
`parties otherwise;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the panel will disregard Petitioner’s
`unauthorized motion requesting a different oral hearing location (Paper 9);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Paper 9 shall be expunged; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for leave to file a
`motion to strike Paper 9 is denied as moot.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`PETITIONER:
`Eliot D. Williams
`G. Hopkins Guy
`Ali Dhanani
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`hop.guy@bakerbotts.com
`ali.dhanani@bakerbotts.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`