Trials
`Baker, W. Todd; Trials
`#Nike-SherryWear; Micah Drayton; Jameson Pasek; Tanner Murphy
`RE: IPR2024–01122, IPR2024–01123, IPR2024–01124, IPR2024–01125, IPR2024–01126, and IPR2024–01127
`Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:22:09 AM
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Counsel:
`
`Petitioner’s request is granted. In each proceeding, Petitioner is authorized to file a 7-page reply to
`the Patent Owner’s response, limited to addressing arguments concerning § 325(d), no later than
`December 27, 2024. In each proceeding, Patent Owner is authorized to file a 7-page sur-reply, no
`later than January 8, 2025. Petitioner’s reply should reference this authorization.
`
`Best regards,
`Eric W. Hawthorne
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`From: Baker, W. Todd <todd.baker@kirkland.com>
`Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 2:24 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: #Nike-SherryWear <Nike-SherryWear@kirkland.com>; Micah Drayton
`<mdrayton@caldwelllaw.com>; Jameson Pasek <jameson@caldwelllaw.com>; Tanner Murphy
`<tanner@caldwelllaw.com>
`Subject: IPR2024–01122, IPR2024–01123, IPR2024–01124, IPR2024–01125, IPR2024–01126, and
`IPR2024–01127
`
`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,
`
`Petitioner in the above-referenced IPRs requests leave to file limited replies of no more than 7 pages
`to each of the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses in IPR2024–01122, IPR2024–01123, IPR2024–
`01124, IPR2024–01125, IPR2024–01126, and IPR2024–01127. Petitioner believes that good cause
`exists for additional briefing. In each of the six listed IPRs, Patent Owner argues the Board should
`deny institution on § 325(d) grounds. Petitioner’s replies would address Patent Owner’s arguments
`that the Asserted Art does not materially differ from the art disclosed during prosecution, that the
`Asserted Art is cumulative of the art considered during prosecution, and that the Petitioner failed to
`show material error by the examiner during prosecution. Patent Owner’s arguments were
`unforeseeable, as they are inconsistent with Patent Owner’s own positions during prosecution of the
`patents at issue and misstate Petitioner’s positions regarding the material errors made by the
`examiner during prosecution.
`
`IPR2024-01122, -01123, -01124,
`-01125, -01126, -01127
`Ex. 3002
`
`

`

`The parties have met and conferred. Patent Owner does not oppose the request for leave to file
`replies so long as it is afforded an opportunity to file sur-replies. Petitioner does not oppose Patent
`Owner’s request to file sur-replies.
`
`Should the Board wish to have a telephone conference to discuss this request, the parties are
`available Wednesday between 1:00 and 2:30 and after 3:00, or any time after 3:00 on Thursday.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Todd Baker
`Counsel for Petitioner
`--------------------------------------------------------------
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004
`T +1 202 389 3135 M +1 443 622 8802
`F +1 202 389 5200
`--------------------------------------------------------------
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`
`
`The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside
`information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of the multi-national law firm Kirkland & Ellis
`LLP and/or its affiliated entities. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly
`prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return
`email or by email to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
`attachments.
`
`
`