`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: April 28, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and
`ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)2
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Modifying Requirements for Filing and Serving Demonstratives
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 ZyXEL Communications Corporation was joined as a petitioner in these
`proceedings based on petitions and motions for joinder filed in IPR2021-
`00734, IPR2021-00739, and IPR2021-00741, respectively.
`2 This Order addresses overlapping issues in the cases listed above.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)
`In the Order of April 26, 2022 (Paper 503), Due Date 8 was changed
`and Oral Arguments were set for May 12, 2022. In an e-mail to the Board
`on April 26, 2022, counsel for Petitioner indicated that Petitioner’s Sur-reply
`to the Opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend is Due on
`May 9, 2022 (Due Date 7A), after the parties are required to serve
`demonstratives on opposing counsel and file demonstratives with the Board
`according to the Order of April 26, 2022. See Paper 50, 4. We consider
`Petitioner’s notification of the conflicting due dates a request to modify the
`schedule for serving and filing demonstratives.
`In view of the conflicting due dates, we waive the requirement of 37
`C.F.R. § 42.70(b) that demonstratives shall be served on opposing counsel at
`least seven (7) business days before the hearing date. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.5(b). We also withdraw the requirement (see Paper 50, 4) that
`demonstratives shall be filed with the Board no later than five (5) business
`days before the hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a).
`Accordingly, we modify the requirements as follows: demonstratives
`shall be served on opposing counsel at least two (2) business days before the
`hearing date (i.e., May 10, 2022) and filed no later than two (2) business
`days before the hearing (i.e., May 10, 2022). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a), (c)(1).
`In the event the parties have unresolved objections to the demonstratives, the
`parties may file any objections to the demonstratives with the Board no later
`than one (1) business day before the hearing (i.e., May 11, 2022).
`
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise noted, we cite to the papers filed in IPR2021-00375.
`Similar Papers were filed in IPR2021-00377 and IPR2021-00582.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that demonstratives shall be served on opposing counsel
`at least two (2) business days before the hearing date;
`FURTHER ORDERED that demonstratives shall be filed no later than
`two (2) business days before the hearing; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the parties have unresolved
`objections to the demonstratives, the parties may file any objections to the
`demonstratives with the Board no later than one (1) business day before the
`hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan Detrixhe
`Peter Chassman
`REED SMITH LLP
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`pchassman@reedsmith.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay Kesan
`DIMUROGINSBERG, PC
`DGKEYIP GROUP
`jay@jaykesan.com
`
`Alfonso Chan
`SHORE CHAN LLP
`achan@shorechan.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
