`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 6
`Entered: February 22, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOE ANDREW SALAZAR,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00273
`Patent 5,802,467
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`On February 15, 2018, the Board received an email communication
`from Patent Owner requesting an extension of time to file Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response, which is due March 12, 2018. Patent Owner’s email
`indicated Petitioner opposes the extension. Subsequently, Petitioner and
`Patent Owner each submitted email communications containing substantive
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00273
`Patent 5,802,467
`
`arguments regarding whether the Board should grant the requested
`extension.
`We note that all relief except for the petition requesting institution of
`trial must be in the form of a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(a). The making of
`all motions, except those already expressly authorized by statute, rule, or
`general order, require prior Board authorization. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b).
`Patent Owner should not have directly requested an extension of time,
`because it had not been authorized to make such a motion. Instead, Patent
`Owner should have requested a conference call to request authorization to
`file a motion for extension of time. Substantive arguments should not be
`made in any email requesting a conference call, any response to an email
`requesting a conference call, or any reply to such a response. These
`communications should only include a general identification of the issues to
`be raised on the call, undisputed facts, the precise relief sought, and whether
`there is opposition.
`The Board will take Patent Owner’s email as a request for a
`conference call to request authorization to file a motion for an extension of
`time. The Board will not consider the substantive arguments in Patent
`Owner’s email communication because these arguments were included
`improperly. The Board also will not consider each party’s subsequent email
`communications because they improperly include substantive arguments.
`The Board has scheduled a conference call with the parties regarding the
`requested extension and each party will have the opportunity to present its
`position during this call. The parties shall not submit additional written
`communications regarding the requested extension unless otherwise so
`requested by the Board.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00273
`Patent 5,802,467
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the parties shall not include substantive argument in
`any email communication to the Board; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that any party violating this order may be
`subject to sanctions pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00273
`Patent 5,802,467
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`B. Todd Patterson
`Jerry R. Selinger
`PATTERSON+SHERIDAN, LLP
`tpatterson@pattersonsheridan.com
`jselinger@pattersonsheridan.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Meredith
`Sucheta Chitgopekar
`MEREDITH & KEYHANI, PLLC
`jmeredith@meredithkeyhani.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
