throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: July 26, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01269
`IPR2020-012701
`Patent 9,219,780 B1
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue a single Order to be entered in
`each case using a joint caption. For efficiency, we cite to the papers filed in
`IPR2020-01269 unless otherwise indicated. The parties are not permitted to
`use this caption.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01269, IPR2020-01270
`Patent 9,219,780 B1
`
`
`With prior Board authorization (Ex. 3001), Patent Owner filed an
`unopposed Motion to Excuse Late Action. Paper 14 (“Mot.” or “Motion”).
`In its Motion, Patent Owner requests that we excuse the late filing of its
`Patent Owner Response and associated exhibits. Mot. 1. Patent Owner
`asserts that, as a result of a docketing error, it filed its Patent Owner
`Response on July 1, 2021, one (1) day after the due date of June 30, 2021.
`Id. Patent Owner provides a Declaration executed by Lead Counsel, stating
`that Patent Owner’s “counsel unintentionally and inadvertently entered on
`his docket for IPR2020-01269 and -01270 the due date for the Patent Owner
`Response for a different IPR.” Ex. 2040 ¶¶ 4–5. Patent Owner states that
`Petitioner does not oppose the Motion. Mot. 1.
`Our rules state that “[a] late action will be excused on a showing of
`good cause or upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits would
`be in the interests of justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) (2019). Patent
`Owner’s explanation of the delay shows that the short delay of 1 day was
`unintentional. We also note that Petitioner does not oppose Patent Owner’s
`request. But most importantly, we conclude that it would be in the interests
`of justice to consider Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence before coming
`to a final decision on the patentability of any claim for which we have
`instituted an inter partes review.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s late action is excused.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01269, IPR2020-01270
`Patent 9,219,780 B1
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Micallef
`Scott Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Yeasun Yoon
`CAPITOL IP LAW GROUP, PLLC
`gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`yoon@capitoliplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

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