` IPR2015-01592, Paper No. 24
`Entered: July 27, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01586
`Patent 8,841,469 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`Patent 8,962,059 B11
`____________
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This order addresses similar issues in both cases; therefore, we issue a
`single order to be entered in each case. The parties may not use this style
`heading in their papers without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01586 (Patent 8,841,469 B2)
`IPR2015-01592 (Patent 8,962,059 B1)
`
`
`In an email dated July 26, 2016, Patent Owner requested a conference
`call with the Board to discuss whether Patent Owner may file a motion to
`object, or other paper, to address portions of Petitioner’s Reply Briefs that
`Patent Owner believes improperly include new arguments and refer to
`evidence that was not previously addressed in the Petitions.
`The panel has considered Patent Owner’s request, and a conference
`call is not necessary at this time. Patent Owner is authorized to file a paper
`in each proceeding calling the Board’s attention to those portions of
`Petitioner’s Reply that are believed by Patent Owner to raise new issues or
`belatedly present evidence. The paper should be in the form of a list
`providing the location and a concise description of any portion of the
`Petitioner’s Reply that Patent Owner wishes to draw to the Board’s
`attention, but it should not contain argument. The paper is limited to two (2)
`pages and should be filed by Due Date 4.
`We also authorize Petitioner to file a paper in response to Patent
`Owner’s submission in each proceeding. If filed by Petitioner, this paper
`should identify, in an itemized manner, what Petitioner regards as the
`material contained in the Patent Owner Response which triggered or caused
`the Petitioner to include in its Reply each item listed by Patent Owner and/or
`where each item listed by Patent Owner appears in the Petition, but it should
`not contain argument. This paper is also limited to two (2) pages and should
`be filed by Due Date 5.
`In rendering a Final Written Decision, the Board will determine what
`weight, if any, is to be given to all of the presented evidence and arguments
`in accordance with the rules of the Board.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01586 (Patent 8,841,469 B2)
`IPR2015-01592 (Patent 8,962,059 B1)
`
`
`As a reminder to the parties and as set forth in the Scheduling Orders,
`the parties may also file, by Due Date 4, Motions to Exclude pursuant to
`37 C.F.R § 42.64(c), which address the admissibility of any evidence for
`which an objection was timely filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(b)(1).
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the parties are authorized to file the above-discussed
`papers consistent with the requirements and deadlines set forth in this Order.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01586 (Patent 8,841,469 B2)
`IPR2015-01592 (Patent 8,962,059 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Richard Roche
`Joel Austin
`Christopher J. Fahy
`QUARLES & BRADY LLP
`richard.roche@quarles.com
`joel.austin@quarles.com
`christopher.fahy@quarles.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph Lucci
`David N. Farsiou
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`4
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
