`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: May 18, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00350 (Patent 9,806,565 B2)
`IPR2022-00351 (Patent 10,622,842 B2)1
`
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in each of the identified cases.
`We exercise our discretion to issue this Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this heading style in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (Patent 9,806,565 B2)
`IPR2022-00351 (Patent 10,622,842 B2)
`
`
`On May 16, 2022, counsel for Petitioner sent an e-mail to the Board
`requesting authorization to file a preliminary reply to Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response (Paper 62) in each of the above-identified cases.
`Ex. 3001. In its e-mail, Petitioner indicates that each preliminary reply
`would address Patent Owner’s contentions regarding the Board’s discretion
`on whether to institute review. See id. Petitioner asserts that each
`preliminary reply would address specifically “intervening facts related to the
`Fintiv factors,” as “developments impacting the Fintiv factors have occurred
`in the district court litigation since the Petitions were filed.” Id. Petitioner
`states that the parties have conferred on this issue, but that “Patent Owner
`opposes Petitioner’s request.” Id.
`We believe that additional briefing on the issue discussed above
`would be beneficial to our analysis of the issue of discretionary denial.
`Petitioner’s request to file a preliminary reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response in each case is therefore granted. We also authorize Patent Owner
`to file a preliminary sur-reply in each case.
`Petitioner’s preliminary reply in each case is limited to no more than
`five pages, and is due no later than May 25, 2022. Patent Owner’s
`preliminary sur-reply in each case is limited to no more than five pages, and
`is due no later than June 1, 2022.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a preliminary reply in each
`of the above-identified cases is granted. Each preliminary reply is not to
`exceed five pages, and is due no later than May 25, 2022; and
`
`2 Paper numbers refer to IPR2022-00350. Corresponding patent owner
`preliminary responses were filed in each of the cases.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00350 (Patent 9,806,565 B2)
`IPR2022-00351 (Patent 10,622,842 B2)
`
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner may file a preliminary sur-reply in
`response to Petitioner’s preliminary reply in each case. Each preliminary
`sur-reply is not to exceed five pages, and is due no later than June 1, 2022.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Calmann J. Clements
`HAYNES AND BONE, LLP
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesbone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesbone.com
`calmann.clements.ipr@haynesbone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Cooper
`Reza Mirzaie
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`bcooper@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
