`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`IPR2015-00887 Paper 13;
`IPR2015-00863 Paper 16
`Entered: October 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00887 (Patent 7,420,550 B2)
`IPR2015-00863 (Patent 7,202,843 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the above-identified inter partes
`reviews. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in the identified cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887 (Patent 7,420,550 B2)
`IPR2015-00863 (Patent 7,202,843 B2)
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Board on a request by Petitioner for
`
`clarification to Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Evidence Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (“Patent Owner’s Objection”) filed on September 22,
`
`2015. Paper 14.2 Petitioner’s responses to Patent Owner’s Objections are due
`
`within ten business days of service of Patent Owner’s Objections. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
`
`During a conference call held on September 29, 2015 between counsel
`
`for the parties3 and Judges Medley, Moore, and Shaw, Petitioner explained
`
`that it had requested clarification of certain objections made by Patent Owner
`
`(Paper 14), but Patent Owner did not provide further clarification. Petitioner
`
`provided examples of objections for which it requested clarification, and
`
`Patent Owner did not provide clarification during the call.
`
`A party objecting to evidence must identify the grounds for the
`
`objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of
`
`supplemental evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). A party relying on
`
`evidence to which an objection is timely filed may respond to the objection
`
`by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the
`
`objection. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). A motion to exclude evidence must be
`
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2014-00863, as representative, unless otherwise
`noted.
`3 A court reporter was transcribing the call.
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887 (Patent 7,420,550 B2)
`IPR2015-00863 (Patent 7,202,843 B2)
`
`
`filed to preserve any objection, and is due towards the end of Trial (DUE
`
`DATE 4). A motion to exclude is typically decided after a hearing has
`
`been held.
`
`As explained during the conference call, to the extent a party does
`
`not identify the grounds for an objection with sufficient particularity to
`
`allow correction, then that party may not supplant and further provide the
`
`sufficient particularity in a motion to exclude. If they do so, the moving
`
`party runs the risk of having the motion to exclude dismissed or denied.
`
`Upon consideration of the positions of the parties, and based on the
`
`assumption that the Patent Owner will provide no further information to
`
`Petitioner, Petitioner should proceed how it will with the information
`
`Petitioner has. At this juncture of the Trial, we decline to rule on any
`
`objections made by the Patent Owner, because doing so would be
`
`premature.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the parties will file a copy of the transcript of the
`
`September 29, 2015 phone call in due course.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887 (Patent 7,420,550 B2)
`IPR2015-00863 (Patent 7,202,843 B2)
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jay Alexander
`
`jalexander@cov.com
`
`
`
`Andrea Reister
`
`areister@cov.com
`
`
`
`Gregory Discher
`
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`
`
`Michelle Carniaux
`
`mcarniaux@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`John Flock
`
`jflock@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wayne Helge
`whelge@dbjg.com
`
`Michael Casey
`mcasey@dbjg.com
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
