`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 87
`IPR2015-01751, Paper 89
`IPR2015-01752, Paper 87
`Entered: December 7, 2018
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01750
`Patent 8,484,111 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`Case IPR2015-01752
`Patent 7,356,482 B21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues common to all cases; therefore, we issue a
`single order to be entered in each case.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`The captioned proceedings have been remanded to the Board by the
`Federal Circuit. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“RPX”). As discussed in our Order of
`November 20, 2018 (Paper 842), the inquiry on remand relates to whether
`Salesforce.com, Inc. must be identified as a real party-in-interest or privy.
`Pursuant to that Order, the parties have now jointly submitted by e-mail their
`proposals regarding the discovery and briefing schedule for the remanded
`proceedings.3 We have reviewed the parties’ proposals and set the discovery
`and briefing schedule as follows:
`
`Discovery Schedule
`The parties agree regarding the voluntary production of certain
`evidence (see Ex. 3003, 2), discussed in more detail below. The parties were
`unable to reach agreement regarding the timing of potential motion practice
`for additional discovery. See id. at 2–3. Having considered the parties’
`positions, and considering also the desire for a just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution to these remand proceedings, we set the discovery schedule as
`follows:
`
`
`2 Unless indicated otherwise, citations herein are to papers and exhibits filed
`in IPR2015-01750. Similar papers and exhibits were filed in
`IPR2015-01751 and IPR2015-01752.
`3 The parties’ November 30, 2018, e-mail refers also to the parties’ e-mail of
`November 15, 2018. We enter both e-mails into the record for
`completeness. See Ex. 3002 (parties’ joint email of November 15, 2018);
`Ex. 3003 (parties’ joint email of November 30, 2018).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`Deadline
`January 4, 2019
`February 1, 2019
`
`Item Due
`Initial production of documents/declarations
`Depositions of declarants, completed by:
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional
`Discovery (optional)
`1 week from Patent
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion for
`Owner’s Motion
`Additional Discovery
`Production of Additional Discovery (if granted) 2 weeks from Board Order
`
`February 8, 2019
`
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Petitioner’s initial production shall
`include “documentary and/or testimonial evidence responsive to the list of
`discovery items RPX proposed in the parties’ joint e‐mail to the Board of
`November 15, 2018.” Ex. 3003, 2; see also Ex. 3002, 5–6. Further pursuant
`to the parties’ agreement, “[e]ach party should serve, during the production
`period, any new evidence on which that party intends to rely in its briefing.”
`Ex. 3003, 2.
`Petitioner also shall include in its initial production any “[d]ocuments
`discussing any efforts by RPX to shield its clients from being named as real
`parties in interest in inter parte [sic] reviews and covered business method
`reviews.” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1364 (Reyna, J. concurring); see Ex. 3003, 2
`(noting parties’ agreement on this point).
`
`Briefing Schedule
`The parties have provided a joint proposal for the briefing schedule.
`See Ex. 3003, 1–2. Based generally on the parties’ proposal, we set the
`briefing schedule for these remand proceedings as follows:
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`Paper
`
`Petitioner’s Opening Brief
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Opposition
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Brief
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`Brief
`Oral Hearing
`
`Deadline
`4 weeks
`(a) from end of the deposition
`period (if no motion for
`additional discovery,
`i.e., March 1, 2019)
`— or —
`(b) from the Board’s decision
`on any motion for additional
`discovery (if a motion is filed)
`3 weeks from Petitioner’s
`Opening Brief
`2 weeks from Patent Owner’s
`Opposition
`
`None authorized at this time4
`
`To be determined
`
`Length
`
`14,000 words
`
`14,000 words
`
`7,000 words
`
`
`
`
`
`Because the issues on remand are the same in each proceeding, the
`same briefs shall be filed in each of the three proceedings. Thus, the parties
`are authorized to use a single caption listing all three cases, and shall file
`identical papers in each captioned case. Further, in accordance with the
`parties’ agreement “each party’s briefing should rely on evidence already of
`record or served during the discovery period, unless the parties agree
`otherwise or other authorization is obtained from the Board.” Ex. 3003, 2.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`4 Patent Owner may contact the Board to discuss a Sur-Reply if it believes
`one is necessary after reviewing Petitioner’s Reply Brief.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Richard F. Giunta
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`Randy J. Pritzker
`Michael N. Rader
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Steven C. Sereboff
`Jonathan Pearce
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`jpearce@socalip.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`