Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 43
`Entered: November 15, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENERAL ACCESS SOLUTIONS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2017-01885 (Patent 7,173,916 B2)
`IPR2017-01887 (Patent 6,891,810 B2)
`IPR2017-01889 (Patent 7,230,931 B2)
`
`
`
`Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Acting Vice Chief Administrative Patent
`Judge, and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE and DAVID M. KOHUT,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision applies to each of the listed cases. The parties are not
`authorized to use a multiple case caption.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 43
`Entered: November 15, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENERAL ACCESS SOLUTIONS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2017-01885 (Patent 7,173,916 B2)
`IPR2017-01887 (Patent 6,891,810 B2)
`IPR2017-01889 (Patent 7,230,931 B2)
`
`
`
`Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Acting Vice Chief Administrative Patent
`Judge, and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE and DAVID M. KOHUT,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision applies to each of the listed cases. The parties are not
`authorized to use a multiple case caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01885 (Patent 7,173,916 B2)
`IPR2017-01887 (Patent 6,891,810 B2)
`IPR2017-01889 (Patent 7,230,931 B2)
`
`
`
`On November 14, 2018, the Board held a conference call with Sprint
`Spectrum L.P. (“Petitioner”) and General Access Solutions, LTD. (“Patent
`Owner”). Patent Owner requested leave to file (1) a sur-reply to Petitioner’s
`Reply (Paper 412) to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 31) in all three
`proceedings, (2) a motion to strike new arguments in Petitioner’s Reply in
`IPR2017-01885 and IPR2017-01887, and (3) a declaration in response to
`evidence and testimony provided in Petitioner’s Reply in IPR2017-01885
`and IPR2017-01887.
`Patent Owner and Petitioner conferred and agreed to Patent Owner’s
`filing of a sur-reply. Patent Owner and Petitioner further agreed that Patent
`Owner’s sur-reply will be due on November 20, 2018. The Board’s Trial
`Practice Guide Update3 provides that sur-replies to petitioner’s reply
`“normally will be authorized.” Trial Practice Guide Update, 14.
`Accordingly, we authorize Patent Owner to file a sur-reply, of no more than
`fifteen (15) pages, limited to responding to Petitioner’s Reply, due on
`November 20, 2018. The sur-reply may “only respond to arguments made
`in [the] reply brief[], comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to
`cross-examination testimony . . . [and] may address the institution decision if
`necessary to respond to petitioner’s reply.” Id.
`
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all citations are to IPR2017-01885. IPR2017-
`01887 and IPR2017-01889 include similar papers.
`3 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, August 2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg.
`39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018).
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01885 (Patent 7,173,916 B2)
`IPR2017-01887 (Patent 6,891,810 B2)
`IPR2017-01889 (Patent 7,230,931 B2)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner seeks leave to file a motion to strike new arguments
`raised in Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Specifically,
`Patent Owner represents that Petitioner has abandoned its original argument
`and has presented a new argument in support of its position. For these
`reasons, we authorize Patent Owner to file a motion to strike, of no more
`than five (5) pages, due on Monday, November 19, 2018, and similarly
`authorize Petitioner to file an opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to strike,
`of no more than five (5) pages, due on Monday November 26, 2018.
`Patent Owner further requested to file a declaration in support of its
`sur-reply. Patent Owner specifically argued that the declaration supports the
`arguments submitted in the sur-reply. Petitioner opposed Patent Owner’s
`submission of a new declaration arguing that Patent Owner was able to cross
`examine Petitioner’s declarant and, in this manner, could have obtained the
`same evidence it wishes to submit in the new declaration. Petitioner further
`argues that the Trial Practice Guide Update specifically cautions against the
`submission of new evidence with the sur-reply. Indeed the Trial Practice
`Guide Update specifies that the “sur-reply may not be accompanied by new
`evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross examination of any
`reply witness.” Trial Practice Guide Update, 14. Accordingly, we do not
`authorize Patent Owner to submit new declaration testimony.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, Patent Owner is authorized to file a sur-reply in each
`of these proceedings, of no more than fifteen (15) pages, limited to
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01885 (Patent 7,173,916 B2)
`IPR2017-01887 (Patent 6,891,810 B2)
`IPR2017-01889 (Patent 7,230,931 B2)
`
`
`responding to arguments presented in Petitioner’s Reply, due November 20,
`2018;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`motion to strike in each of the IPR2017-01885 and IPR2017-01889
`proceedings, of no more than five (5) pages, due November 19, 2018;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file an
`opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to strike, of no more than five (5)
`pages, due November 26, 2018; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is not authorized to file a
`new declaration in support of the sur-reply.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01885 (Patent 7,173,916 B2)
`IPR2017-01887 (Patent 6,891,810 B2)
`IPR2017-01889 (Patent 7,230,931 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert C. Hilton
`George B. Davis
`Jason W. Cook
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
`gdavis@mcguirewoods.com
`jcook@mcquirewoods.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Anthony Dowell
`Richard T. McCaulley
`McCAULLEY DOWELL
`aedowell@dowellip.com
`rmccaulley@mccaulleydowell.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
