Trials
`Tuesday, April 9, 2024 8:03 AM
`Pepe, Christopher; Trials
`Jim Glass; John McKee; Jason Williams; Quincy Lu; Desai, Anish; Percer, Adrian; Yu, Tom; Ansley,
`Sutton; Sieger, Matthew
`RE: IPR2024-00231 and IPR 2024-00267: Request for Authorization to File Reply to Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response
`
`Ross, Avelyn
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Counsel,
`
`From the Board –
`
`Petitioner is authorized to file a five page Preliminary Reply in each case to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments and
`evidence of objective evidence of nonobviousness. Petitioner is also authorized to file the evidence referenced in their
`request for leave. Patent Owner is also authorized to file a five page Sur reply in each case to respond to the arguments
`Petitioner raises in its Preliminary Reply. Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply must be filed no later than 4/16/24 and Patent
`Owner’s Sur reply must be filed no later than 4/23/24.
`
`Regards,
`
`Esther Goldschlager
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`
`From: Pepe, Christopher <Christopher.Pepe@weil.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 3:05 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Jim Glass <jimglass@quinnemanuel.com>; John McKee <johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com>; Jason Williams
`<jasonwilliams@quinnemanuel.com>; Quincy Lu <quincylu@quinnemanuel.com>; Desai, Anish
`<anish.desai@weil.com>; Percer, Adrian <adrian.percer@weil.com>; Yu, Tom <Tom.Yu@weil.com>; Ansley, Sutton
`<sutton.ansley@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew <Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>
`Subject: IPR2024 00231 and IPR 2024 00267: Request for Authorization to File Reply to Patent Owner's Preliminary
`Response
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on
`links, or opening attachments.
`
`Dear Board,
`
`Petitioners NJOY LLC and NJOY Holdings Inc. respectfully request leave in IPR2024 00231 and IPR 2024 00267 to file a
`five page reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in each IPR. Specifically, Petitioners seek leave to file a reply to
`address Patent Owner’s secondary considerations arguments. Good cause exists to do so because Patent Owner’s
`arguments reference confidential information subject to an ITC protective order that Petitioner could not have
`addressed in the Petition. Petitioners also seek leave to file two full deposition transcripts that correspond to excerpts
`of deposition transcripts submitted with the Preliminary Response (See Ex. 2025 and Ex. 2026), as well as three exhibits
`to those deposition transcripts. The deposition transcripts and three exhibits will be designated “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`MATERIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pursuant to the proposed stipulated Protective Order (Ex. 2101), will be filed
`1
`
`

`

`“Parties and Board Only” on P TACTS, and Petitioner will file a concurrent motion to seal under the pending proposed
`stipulated Protective Order.
`
`The parties have conferred. Patent Owner does not agree with Petitioner’s position that it could not have addressed
`secondary considerations in the Petition, but to avoid needless dispute, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s
`request provided that Patent Owner is permitted to submit a five page sur reply within one week of Petitioner
`submitting its Reply. Petitioner does not oppose Patent Owner’s request for a sur reply.
`
`To the extent the Board would like to hold a teleconference concerning Petitioners’ request, the parties will confer and
`provide their availability.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Chris Pepe
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`Christopher Pepe
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`christopher.pepe@weil.com
`+1 202 682 7153 Direct
`+1 202 857 0940 Fax
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
`reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
`recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
`prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, postmaster@weil.com,
`and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`2
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket