throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`Date: September 9, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00712 (Patent 8,903,307 B2)
`IPR2021-00716 (Patent 8,688,028 B2)
`IPR2021-00718 (Patent 9,584,843 B2)
`IPR2021-00719 (Patent 9,294,806 B2)
`IPR2021-00720 (Patent 9,355,405 B2)
` IPR2021-00721 (Patent 8,166,081 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, HYUN J. JUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue pertaining to all six cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue a single Order to be filed in each case. Other
`than as expressly authorized herein, the parties are not authorized to use this
`style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00712, IPR2021-00716, IPR2021-00718,
`IPR2021-00719, IPR2021-00720, IPR2021-00721
`
`
`A conference call in the above proceedings was held on September 8,
`2021, among respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and
`Judges Arbes, Jung, and Trock. The call was requested by Petitioner to seek
`authorization to file a five-page reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Responses in these proceedings. Patent Owner argues in each Preliminary
`Response that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on the state of five related district court cases
`involving the challenged patents, including StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen
`Group of America, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-01131 (W.D. Tex.) (“the
`Volkswagen case”). E.g., IPR2021-00712, Paper 6 at 4–22 (citing Apple
`Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`(precedential) (“Fintiv”)).2
`Petitioner argued during the call that it did not address the issue of
`discretionary denial in the Petitions because it filed the Petitions only four
`months after service of the complaint in the Volkswagen case, prior to the
`district court setting a schedule and trial date, and when Petitioner’s motion
`to dismiss or transfer for improper venue in the Volkswagen case was
`pending. According to Petitioner, it could not anticipate the arguments made
`by Patent Owner regarding later events, including the district court issuing a
`Scheduling Order in July 2021. See Ex. 2006. Patent Owner opposed
`Petitioner’s request, asserting that its arguments in the Preliminary
`Responses were foreseeable based on the district court’s past scheduling
`practices. Patent Owner also argued that any stipulation offered by
`
`
`2 Patent Owner did not argue that we should exercise our discretion to deny
`the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on the Fintiv factors in related
`Case IPR2021-00717. See IPR2021-00717, Paper 9.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00712, IPR2021-00716, IPR2021-00718,
`IPR2021-00719, IPR2021-00720, IPR2021-00721
`
`Petitioner with respect to the asserted grounds of unpatentability and the
`Volkswagen case is immaterial, given the other four district court cases with
`different defendants.
`We took the matter under advisement. Upon further consideration,
`we determine that there is good cause for a limited reply due to the timing of
`the related district court cases. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). In particular,
`no case schedule and no trial date had been set at the time Petitioner filed its
`Petitions. Petitioner could not have foreseen arguments based on timing that
`had not yet been established. To ensure that both parties are heard on the
`issue, we also authorize Patent Owner to file a sur-reply responding to
`Petitioner’s arguments. The reply and sur-reply are limited to the issue of
`discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the parties are referred to
`Board decisions on that issue, including Fintiv; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)
`(precedential as to § II.A); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative); and Sand Revolution II, LLC
`v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24
`(PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative). The parties may file relevant
`documents from the district court cases as exhibits with their reply and
`sur-reply if necessary.
`Finally, should any of the relevant facts pertaining to the district court
`cases change after the filing of the papers authorized herein, the parties may
`request another conference call to notify the Board.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a reply in the instant
`proceedings, limited to five pages and addressing only the issue of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00712, IPR2021-00716, IPR2021-00718,
`IPR2021-00719, IPR2021-00720, IPR2021-00721
`
`discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), by September 16, 2021;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`sur-reply, limited to five pages and responding to Petitioner’s reply, by
`September 23, 2021; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a single reply and
`sur-reply in all six proceedings using a caption referring to all of the
`proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00712, IPR2021-00716, IPR2021-00718,
`IPR2021-00719, IPR2021-00720, IPR2021-00721
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Eric S. Lucas
`David J. Cooperberg
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`eric.lucas@shearman.com
`david.cooperberg@shearman.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Scheibeler
`Jonathan Lamberson
`Ashley T. Brzezinski
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`jonathan.lamberson@whitecase.com
`ashley.brzezinski@whitecase.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