`571-272-7822
` IPR2015-00124 Paper 34; IPR2015-00125 Paper 33
`
`
` IPR2015-00133 Paper 31; IPR2015-00137 Paper 30
`
` Entered: March 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASKELADDEN LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEAN I. MCGHIE and BRIAN BUCHHEIT,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request to refile Preliminary Responses
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`Petitioner Askeladden LLC (“Askeladden”) filed a Petition requesting
`
`an inter partes review in each of the above-identified proceedings. Paper 1,2
`
`“Pet.” Patent Owner Sean I. McGhie and Brian Buchheit filed a Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response in each of the above-identified proceedings.
`
`Paper 10. In its Preliminary Responses, Patent Owner raised a real party-in-
`
`interest issue. Id. at 53. We decided that issue. Papers 26 and 30.
`
`Soon thereafter, Patent Owner emailed the Board requesting leave to
`
`refile its Preliminary Responses to essentially take out the real party-in-
`
`interest arguments and replace them with something else. Petitioner
`
`opposed the request.
`
`We exercised our discretion to decide the real party-in-interest issue
`
`separate from any decisions on whether to institute inter partes reviews in
`
`these proceedings. That does not mean, however, that Patent Owner may
`
`now supplant or refile the Patent Owner Preliminary Responses. The issue
`
`did not go away as Patent Owner seems to believe, but rather was decided.
`
`Based on the facts of these proceedings, we determine that providing
`
`Patent Owner an opportunity to refile preliminary responses would not result
`
`in securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these proceedings.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 41.1(b).
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to refile its preliminary
`
`responses is denied.
`
`
`2 Citations are to IPR2015-00133.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00124 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00133 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00123 (Patent 8,523,063)
`IPR2015-00125 (Patent 8,540,152)
`IPR2015-00137 (Patent 8,297,502)
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Robert H. Fischer
`Frank A. DeLucia
`Stephen Yam
`Justin Oliver
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`askeladdenIPR@fchs.com
`joliver@fchs.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian Buchheit
`bbucheit@gmail.com
`
`
`Sean McGhie
`sean.mcghie@me.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`