`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 36
` Entered: May 18, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Extending One-Year Pendency for Good Cause
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims
`
`1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228 B2. On June 13, 2022, the Board
`
`instituted trial. Paper 12. The one-year period normally available to issue a
`
`Final Written Decision expires on June 13, 2023.
`
`In this proceeding, however, Patent Owner MemoryWeb, LLC seeks
`
`leave to file a motion to dismiss this proceeding in view of the Board’s Final
`
`Written Decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-
`
`01413 (“Unified Patents”), entered as Paper 58 in that proceeding on March
`
`14, 2023, and the Board’s Order Identifying Real Party in Interest entered as
`
`Paper 56 on March 8, 2023. Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Company Inc.
`
`(“Samsung”) opposes Patent Owner’s request to file a motion to dismiss,
`
`and alternatively seeks leave for discovery on the matters addressed in Paper
`
`56 identifying Samsung as a Real Party in Interest in the Unified Patents
`
`proceeding.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11), “the final determination in an
`
`inter partes review [shall] be issued not later than 1 year after the date on
`
`which the Director notices the institution of a review under this chapter,
`
`except that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend the 1-year
`
`period by not more than 6 months . . . .” The Director has delegated the
`
`authority to extend the one-year period to the Chief Administrative Patent
`
`Judge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). In particular, 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c)
`
`provides:
`
`An inter partes review proceeding shall be administered such
`that pendency before the Board after institution is normally no
`more than one year. The time can be extended by up to six
`months for good cause by the Chief Administrative Patent
`Judge . . . .
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c), the Chief Administrative
`
`Patent Judge has determined that good cause exists to extend the one-year
`
`period for issuing a Final Written Decision here. Paper 35; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(c). Accordingly, the time to administer the present proceeding is
`
`extended by up to six months.
`
`The Board will issue an order in due course providing instructions to
`
`the parties regarding the particular procedures for moving forward in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that good cause exists to extend the time of pendency in
`
`this proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is extended by up to six
`
`months.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`Hyun Jin In
`Christopher O. Green
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`IPR29843-01171P1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`George Dandalides
`Mathew A. Werber
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`mwerber@nixonpeabody.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
