From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Kiblawi, Fadi N.
`"sommera@gtlaw.com"; Park, Peter S.; Rabena, John F.; Mandir, William H.
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com; roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`RE: IPR2021-00368: Reply to POPR
`image001.png
`
`Drew,
`
`Patent Owners oppose Unified’s request for a reply on the RPI issue because Unified has no good
`cause. The burden of persuasion with respect to real parties-in-interest starts and ends with
`Petitioner, which is why Unified submitted a Declaration as to relevant facts with the Petition.
`Further, as you know, SharkNinja states that the Board is not required to (as opposed to not
`permitted to) decide RPI issues at institution. Thus, Patent Owners disagree that Unified “could not
`have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that SharkNinja does not apply at the time the
`petition was filed.” Unified is well aware that SharkNinja is not a prohibition, as you appear to have
`recognized in your email of March 19, 2021 (“…in light of the Board’s decision in SharkNinja … the
`Board does not always need to consider whether the RPI disclosure is correct at the institution
`stage”).
`
`Thus, Patent Owners oppose Petitioner’s request for additional briefing, as there lacks good cause
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`In terms of availability for a conference with the Board, we are available March 5-7.
`
`Best,
`Fadi
`
`From: sommera@gtlaw.com <sommera@gtlaw.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 6:34 AM
`To: Kiblawi, Fadi N. <fkiblawi@sughrue.com>; Park, Peter S. <ppark@sughrue.com>; Rabena, John F.
`<jrabena@sughrue.com>; Mandir, William H. <wmandir@sughrue.com>
`Cc: afawzy@unifiedpatents.com; roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`Subject: IPR2021-00368: Reply to POPR
`
`Fadi,
`
`Unified will seek the Board’s authorization to file a reply to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the
`identification of RPIs. Unified intends to ask for 15 pages and the ability to submit evidence in response
`to Patent Owner’s arguments (which made up about 20 pages of the POPR). Good cause exists
`because Petitioner could not have anticipated that Patent Owner would include an argument that the
`Board need not consider at this stage, as set forth by the Board’s precedential decision in SharkNinja.
`Petitioner also could not have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that SharkNinja does not apply
`at the time the petition was filed, given the Board’s explicit characterization of SharkNinja’s holding (“no
`RPI analysis necessary at institution absent allegation of time bar or estoppel based on unnamed RPI”).
`
`Please let us know Patent Owner’s position on Unified’s request. Additionally, in the email to the Board,
`we would like to provide our availability for a call should the panel deem it necessary. We would like to
`provide dates between May 3rd and May 6th, and I can currently be flexible with respect to the timing of
`the call. Please provide availability for someone on your team that can handle a call with the Board
`
`

`

`should one be needed.
`
`Regards,
`
`Drew
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Shareholder
`
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1000 | McLean, VA 22102
`T +1 703.749.1370
`sommera@gtlaw.com  |  http://www.gtlaw.com  |  View GT Biography
`
`
`Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Boston. Berlin*. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fort Lauderdale. Houston.
`Las Vegas. London*. Los Angeles. Mexico City*. Miami. Minneapolis. New Jersey. New York. Northern Virginia.
`Orange County. Orlando. Palm Beach County. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacramento. San Francisco. Seoul*. Shanghai.
`Silicon Valley. Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel Aviv*. Tokyo*. Warsaw*. Washington, D.C. Westchester County.
`
`*Berlin: Greenberg Traurig’s Berlin Office is operated by Greenberg Traurig Germany, an affiliate of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. and Greenberg Traurig,
`LLP.; London: Operates as a separate UK registered legal entity; Mexico City: Operates as Greenberg Traurig, S.C.; Seoul: Operated by Greenberg
`Traurig LLP Foreign Legal Consultant Office; Tel Aviv: A branch of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Florida, USA; Greenberg Traurig Tokyo Law Offices are
`operated by GT Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho, an affiliate of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. and Greenberg Traurig, LLP.; Warsaw: Operates as Greenberg Traurig
`Grzesiak SP.K.
`
`
`If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email,
`please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or
`disseminate the information.
`
`