`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 38
`Entered: January 10, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PATRICK ZUILI,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2016-00022
`Patent 8,326,763 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GLENN J. PERRY, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`Patent 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`On January 9, 2017, a conference call was held. The participants
`were Judges Lee, Perry, and Quinn, counsel for Petitioner, and Mr. Patrick
`Zuili appearing pro se for Patent Owner. During the conference call,
`counsel for Petitioner requested authorization to file a Motion for Excusal of
`Lateness in Requesting Oral Argument, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3).
`We informed Petitioner that any such motion shall explain and
`account for what efforts were expended by Petitioner since the filing of
`Petitioner’s Reply on October 31, 2016, to decide whether to request oral
`argument. The motion should state, specifically, the date on which the
`decision was made to request oral argument. If the date of that decision was
`on or after the due date for requesting oral argument, the motion shall
`explain why the decision could not have been made earlier. If the decision
`was made prior to the due date for requesting oral argument, the motion
`shall explain why the request for oral argument could not have been timely
`filed. The explanations shall also indicate how many attorneys are included
`in Customer Number 26565 as identified in Petitioner’s Power of Attorney
`filed on December 17, 2015 (Paper 2), and why, neither the back-up counsel
`of record nor any of the other attorneys within Customer Number 26565
`could have filed a request for oral argument in case Petitioner’s lead attorney
`had an emergency on the due date for requesting oral hearing.
`We also explained to Petitioner that no new argument is permitted at
`oral argument. Petitioner’s motion should explain why oral argument is
`particularly important to Petitioner in this case.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`Patent 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a motion to excuse
`lateness in filing its request for oral argument, limited to three pages, by
`Thursday, January 12, 2017, 1 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file an
`opposition, limited to three pages, by January 17, 2017 (Tuesday); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a reply,
`limited to two pages, by Thursday, January 19, 2017.
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner:
`Saqib Siddiqui
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`Patent Owner (pro se):
`Patrick Zuili
`patrick@tenderbox.tv
`
`
`1 During the conference call, we indicated Friday, January 13, 2017. But we
`now order that any such motion be filed by January 12, 2017.
`
`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
