`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: March 5, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2019-00251
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`
`On March 3, 2020, Petitioner contacted the Board by e-mail requesting
`authorization to file a motion to strike portions of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply in this
`proceeding, because, according to Petitioner, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply reproduces
`content from and discusses new evidence that was not previously submitted as
`evidence in this proceeding.
`The panel does not authorize the requested Motion to Strike. As explained
`in the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, “[i]n most cases, the Board is capable of
`identifying new issues or belatedly presented evidence when weighing the
`evidence at the close of trial, and disregarding any new issues or belatedly
`presented evidence that exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” See
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 80 (November 2019), available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. The Trial Practice Guide
`instructs that “striking the entirety or a portion of a party’s brief is an exceptional
`remedy that the Board expects will be granted rarely.” Id. We decline at this time
`to exclude the sur-reply submissions.
`The propriety or impropriety of the identified portions of the reply will be
`addressed, if necessary, in our Final Written Decision. To the extent the panel
`determines that any item identified by Patent Owner warrants additional briefing,
`an Order will be issued, providing such instruction to the parties. Furthermore,
`although at this time we do not deem it necessary to resolve this issue prior to the
`Final Written Decision or via formal briefing, should either party request a hearing,
`the parties may address this issue during oral argument.
`In view of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner is not authorized to file a motion to strike.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251
`Patent 6,993,049 B2
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto J. Devoto
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`