Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 62
`Entered: September 12, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC., and NETGEAR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)1
`_______________
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER2
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., and
`Netgear, Inc. filed petitions in (now terminated) IPR2017-00718, IPR2017-
`00719, IPR2017-00720, and IPR2017-00790, and were joined to the above-
`listed proceedings.
`2 This Order will be entered in each of the above-listed proceedings as the
`caption indicates. The parties are not permitted to use this caption style.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 62
`Entered: September 12, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC., and NETGEAR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)1
`_______________
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER2
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., and
`Netgear, Inc. filed petitions in (now terminated) IPR2017-00718, IPR2017-
`00719, IPR2017-00720, and IPR2017-00790, and were joined to the above-
`listed proceedings.
`2 This Order will be entered in each of the above-listed proceedings as the
`caption indicates. The parties are not permitted to use this caption style.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On September 6, 2017, Judges Easthom, Anderson, and Weinschenk
`held a telephone conference call with counsel for Juniper Networks, Inc.
`(“Petitioner”) and counsel for Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). A
`court reporter transcribed the call. This Order summarizes the call, but the
`court reporter’s transcript contains a more complete record. Paper 64
`(“Tr.”).3
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`In IPR2016-01389, Petitioner challenges the patentability of certain
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 B2 (“the ’012 patent”), and, in
`IPR2016-01399, Petitioner challenges the patentability of certain claims of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 B2 (“the ’760 patent). During the oral hearing for
`these proceedings held on August 31, 2017, Patent Owner notified us for the
`first time that the ’012 patent is the subject of an ex parte reexamination that
`was filed on May 18, 2016,4 and the ’760 patent is the subject of an ex parte
`reexamination that was filed on August 29, 20165 (collectively, “the related
`reexaminations”). In an email to the Board on September 1, 2017, Petitioner
`
`
`3 All citations are to the record in IPR2016-01389.
`4 Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740.
`5 Reexamination Control No. 90/013,802.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`requested authorization to file a motion to stay the related reexaminations
`pending the outcome of these proceedings.6
`The parties knew about the related reexaminations at least since
`February 6, 2017. Tr. 8:13–18, 10:3–10; Ex. 3002; Ex. 3003. Neither party,
`however, updated its mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(a)(3),
`(b)(2), to identify the related reexaminations, or otherwise notified us of the
`related reexaminations prior to the oral hearing. Tr. 8:2–7, 10:15–18.
`During the call on September 6, 2017, the parties did not provide an
`adequate explanation for their delay in notifying us of the related
`reexaminations. Id. at 8:13–9:7, 10:15–12:21.
`The related reexaminations are at a very advanced stage now. The
`reexamination of the ’012 patent has concluded with all of the reexamined
`claims being rejected (Tr. 5:19–6:2; Ex. 3004), and an appeal brief has been
`filed by Patent Owner (Ex. 3005). The reexamination of the ’760 patent has
`concluded with a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate. Tr.
`6:16–20; Ex. 3006. Further, the related reexaminations do not appear to
`involve the same grounds of unpatentability as these proceedings. We note
`that the related reexaminations involve a prior art reference known as
`Bloch,7 which also is involved in these proceedings. Tr. 13:17–22; Ex.
`3005, 36–37; Ex. 3007, 6. However, in the related reexaminations, Bloch
`
`
`6 In the same email, Petitioner also requested authorization to file a motion
`for sanctions against Patent Owner for its delay in notifying the Board of the
`related reexaminations. During the call on September 6, 2017, though,
`Petitioner withdrew that request. Tr. 23:14–17.
`7 Bloch et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 (issued Nov. 6, 1979) (“Bloch”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`was applied to claims that are not at issue in the instant inter partes review
`proceedings. Ex. 3005, 36–37; Ex. 3007, 6.
`After considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in
`these proceedings, we deny Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a
`motion to stay the related reexaminations. We are not persuaded that a
`motion to stay is appropriate at this time because 1) Petitioner knew about
`the related reexaminations at least since February 6, 2017, but waited until
`September 1, 2017, to request authorization for a motion to stay the related
`reexaminations; 2) the related reexaminations are at a very advanced stage
`now; and 3) the related reexaminations do not appear to involve the same
`grounds of unpatentability as these proceedings.
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion
`to stay the related reexaminations is denied.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Nima Hefazi
`Michael Fleming
`Jonathan Kagan
`Talin Gordnia
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`nhefazi@irell.com
`mfleming@irell.com
`jkagan@irell.com
`tgordnia@irell.com
`
`Joseph A. Powers
`Christopher J. Tyson
`Matthew S. Yungwirth
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`japowers@duanemorris.com
`cjtyson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`Thomas A. Lewry
`Marc Lorelli
`Christopher C. Smith
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`CHRMC0110IPR2@brookskushman.com
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann
`REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
`hoffmann@reising.com
`
`5
`
`
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
