`
`
`
`
` Paper: 41
`
`
`
` Entered: July 6, 2022
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`____________
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`
`On July 1, 2022, a conference call was held involving counsel for the
`respective parties and Judges Medley, Peslak, and Jung. 1 The purpose of
`the conference call was for Patent Owner to seek authorization to file, as an
`exhibit in the proceeding, a “claim construction technical tutorial from
`related litigation.” Ex. 2030, 7:22–8:1. Petitioner opposed.
`During the conference call, Patent Owner explained that the technical
`tutorial is relevant to the parties’ dispute over the meaning of the claim term
`“plurality of clients.” Id. at 8:14–9:3. In particular, Patent Owner asserts
`that a statement made in the technical tutorial is inconsistent with
`Petitioner’s assertions made in the Petitioner Reply. See, e.g., Patent Owner
`Sur-reply (Paper 38, 4–5 “Sur-reply”). Patent Owner acknowledged that it
`has known of the technical tutorial since October, 2021 and that it became
`aware of the alleged inconsistency once Petitioner filed its Reply on May
`26, 2022. Ex. 2030, 8:7–9:5. Petitioner argued that the technical tutorial is
`a document that was never filed in the district court, but served only as an
`educational tool to the judge. Id. at 12:13–16. Petitioner further argued that
`there is no inconsistency with the statement made in the technical tutorial
`that the Patent Owner’s Sur-reply quotes and Petitioner’s claim construction
`position. Id. at 11:19–24.
`The time for filing substantive papers and exhibits has passed. Papers
`18, 28. The hearing in this proceeding is scheduled for August 10, 2022.
`Paper 39. Patent Owner’s request to file, as an exhibit, the technical tutorial
`is late. Ex. 2030, 8:21–24. A late filing 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). Patent Owner
`
`
`1 A transcript of the conference call is of record. Ex. 2030.
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`
`became aware of the technical tutorial in October, 2021, and knew about
`Petitioner’s alleged inconsistent statements made regarding the technical
`tutorial since May 26, 2022. Ex. 2030, 8:7–9:5. Patent Owner failed to
`explain sufficiently why it would be in the interests of justice to file the
`technical tutorial. Only one statement from the technical tutorial is
`purportedly relevant to claim construction and we have before us that
`statement. Sur-reply 4–5. Moreover, according to Patent Owner, “even
`without that tutorial, the intrinsic record shows that the claimed ‘plurality of
`clients’ are clients in a networked environment.” Id. No sufficient reason
`was provided for belatedly filing the entire tutorial as an exhibit for us to
`resolve the issues before us. Ex. 2030, 10:23–11:16.
`Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to file the technical tutorial as
`an exhibit is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Donald Daybell
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`d2dptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Kevin K. McNish
`MCNISH PLLC
`kkm-ptab@mcnishpllc.com
`
`Lauren Robinson
`Brenda Entzminger
`BUNSOW DE MORY LLP
`lrobinson@bdiplaw.com
`bentzminger@bdiplaw.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
