`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 8
`Entered: August 18, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Patent 8,463,030 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Corrected Petition
`37 C.F.R § 42.104(c)
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Bank of America, N.A. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition seeking inter
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,463,030 B2. Paper 1. With Board
`authorization, Petitioner filed a motion to correct clerical errors in its
`petition and to file a corrected petition. Paper 7 (“Motion”). Petitioner
`represents that the Motion is unopposed. Motion 2, 7.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Patent 8,463,030 B2
`
`
`Petitioner contends that “[n]o new prior art or new substance is being
`added” by the corrections. Motion 1. Petitioner further contends “there are
`no material changes to the analysis within the Petition.” Id. Further,
`Petitioner contends “since Petitioner’s proposed correction will not change
`the substance of the analysis within the Petition, the Patent Owner is not
`required to do any additional analysis on the merits, or otherwise, in its
`preliminary response once these errors are corrected.” Id.
`Petitioner provides a summary of the proposed corrections at pages 2–
`5 of the Motion. Petitioner explains that “[t]he errors are based on incorrect
`dates of certain docket entries or procedural events in the district court
`proceeding, incomplete or incorrect supporting citations, and minor
`typographical errors.” Motion 5. Petitioner further explains that “[t]he
`proposed changes correct the errors for clarity.” Id. Petitioner provides an
`explanation for each of the proposed changes. Id. at 6.
`II. DISCUSSION
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 104(c), “[a] motion may be filed that seeks to
`correct a clerical or typographical mistake in the petition.” Further, “[t]he
`moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the
`requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20 (c).
`We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the
`Motion should be granted. First, the errors appear to be clerical or
`typographical. Motion 6. For example, two involve incorrect dates for
`docket entries. Id. at 3. Several others involve incorrect or incomplete
`citations for which the context suggests the correct information. Id. at 4–5.
`Others involve minor misquotations or misspellings. Id. at 3, 5.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Patent 8,463,030 B2
`
`
`Petitioner demonstrates that it acted diligently in seeking authorization
`to make the corrections. See Motion 2. Moreover, it does not appear that
`the proposed corrections will add new prior art or substantive arguments to
`the Petition or appreciably increase its length. Id. at 7. We find that
`Petitioner has carried its burden of showing that the Motion should be
`granted.
`III. ORDER
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a corrected
`Petition within ten days of the date of this Order; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the only corrections to the Petition
`authorized are those shown in the table appearing at pages 2–5 of the
`Motion; no other corrections to the Petition are permitted.
`
` PETITIONER:
`Dustin Edwards
`Michael Tomasulo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`dedwares@winston.com
`mtomasulo@winston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Glass
`Todd Briggs
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`