throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: May 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)1
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 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)
`Judges Droesch, Parvis, and Boudreau held a conference call on
`May 18, 2021, with counsel for the parties. Counsel for Petitioner requested
`the call seeking authorization to file a reply to the Preliminary Response
`filed in each of IPR2021-00375 and IPR2021-00377.
`Counsel for Petitioner requests authorization to file a reply to the
`Preliminary Response in each of IPR2021-00375 and IPR2021-00377 to
`address certain arguments by Patent Owner that the Board should exercise
`its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on the
`factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11
`(PTAB March 20, 2020) (precedential, designated May, 5, 2020) (“Fintiv”).
`More specifically, counsel for Petitioner asserts there is good cause for
`authorizing a reply to address the issue of real party-in-interest raised by
`Patent Owner as part of its analysis of the sixth Fintiv factor. Counsel for
`Petitioner also contends there is good cause for authorizing a reply to
`address the currently scheduled trial date in the related district court
`litigation in the context of the second Fintiv factor because there are multiple
`trials scheduled for the same date. Counsel for Patent Owner opposes
`Petitioner’s request, arguing there is not good cause for granting the request
`because Petitioner could have foreseen the real party-in-interest and trial
`date issues. Counsel for Patent Owner asserts that additional briefing will
`not resolve the real party-in-interest issue. Counsel for Patent Owner further
`contends that the scheduled trial date in the related district court litigation
`has not changed since the Petition was filed, and that it is common practice
`to schedule multiple trials for the same date with the expectation that some
`cases will settle.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`Specific to IPR2021-00375, Petitioner also requests authorization to
`address Patent Owner’s arguments that the challenged claims are entitled to
`the benefit of the earlier filing date of Provisional Application 60/929,798.
`Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request, arguing that this issue was
`foreseeable and that Petitioner already addressed this issue in its Petition.
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner seeks a second bite at the apple.
`Specific to IPR2021-00377, Petitioner requests authorization to
`address Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments that the meaning of
`“compress” excludes quantization. Petitioner contends that this claim
`construction issue was not foreseeable because it is not addressed in the
`related district court litigation. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request,
`asserting this claim construction issue was foreseeable because the Patent
`Specification in numerous instances makes a distinction between the terms
`compress and quantization.
`After considering the parties’ contentions made during the conference
`call, we conclude that good cause exists for authorizing Petitioner’s request
`to file a reply to address the real party-in-interest issue in the context of the
`sixth Fintiv factor and the scheduled trial date of the related district court
`litigation in the context of the second Fintiv factor. We, however, do not
`conclude that good cause exists for authorizing Petitioner to file a reply to
`address the entitlement of the challenged claims to the benefit of an earlier
`filing date and to address the claim construction issue. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108. We note that a reply is not an opportunity to supplement the
`Petition on the merits.
`Accordingly, we authorize Petitioner to file a four (4) page reply to
`the Preliminary Response to address the real party-in-interest issue in the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`context of the sixth Fintiv factor and the scheduled trial date of the related
`district court litigation in the context of the second Fintiv factor. We further
`authorize Patent Owner to file a four (4) page sur-reply.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply to
`the Preliminary Response is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s reply is limited to four (4)
`pages and shall be filed no later than May 25, 2021; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a sur-
`reply, limited to four (4) pages, no later than June 1, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jonathan I. Detrixhe
`Peter J. Chassman
`REED SMITH LLP
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`pchassman@reedsmith.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay P. Kesan
`DIMUROGINSBERG, PC
`jkesan@dimuro.com
`
`Alfonso Chan
`SHORE CHAN LLP
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`

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