`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: February 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SLING TV L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 4, 2020, the Board instituted trial in this proceeding.
`Paper 7 (Institution Decision). The accompanying Scheduling Order states,
`“Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if requested,
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`will be held at the Dallas, Texas, USPTO Regional Office.” Paper 8, 5
`(“Scheduling Order”). The Scheduling Order further states, “The parties
`may request that the oral argument instead be held at the San Jose,
`California, USPTO Regional Office,” and it authorizes the parties to “jointly
`file a paper stating their preference for the hearing location within one
`month of this Order.” Id. at 5–6.
`On February 10, 2020, Petitioner filed a paper—expressly
`acknowledging that it was understood not to be joined by Patent Owner—
`requesting that oral argument be held at the Silicon Valley USPTO Regional
`Office in San Jose, California. Paper 9 (“Request”). Later that day, Patent
`Owner contacted the Board via email to confirm that it did not join the
`Request, to contend that Petitioner’s unilateral filing of the Request was
`improper, and to request “that the Board disregard or otherwise grant Patent
`Owner leave to move to strike” the Request.
`Petitioner’s unilateral Request was not authorized by either the
`Scheduling Order or the panel. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b) (“A motion will
`not be entered without Board authorization.”); see also id. at § 42.2
`(“Motion means a request for relief other than by petition.”). Accordingly,
`we disregard the Request, and we exercise our discretion to expunge the
`unauthorized paper (Paper 9). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.7(a) (“The Board may
`expunge any paper . . . that is not authorized under this part or in a Board
`order . . . .”).
`We note, however, that under current Board procedures, Petitioner
`will have an opportunity later in this proceeding to request that its counsel
`appear in San Jose for oral argument. In particular, the panel will issue a
`hearing order, if the parties request an oral hearing, and hearing orders
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`currently provide authorization to each party to request that its counsel be
`permitted to present argument remotely from an alternative USPTO location,
`such as the Silicon Valley Office in San Jose, California. Moreover, even if
`the hearing order in this proceeding does not expressly include such an
`authorization, Petitioner may contact the panel promptly after receiving the
`hearing order to seek authorization to submit such a request.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that no change is made to the Board’s Scheduling Order
`(Paper 8), and accordingly, oral argument, if requested, will still be held at
`the Dallas, Texas, USPTO Regional Office, unless the Board notifies the
`parties otherwise;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the panel will disregard Petitioner’s
`unauthorized motion requesting a different oral hearing location (Paper 9);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Paper 9 shall be expunged; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for leave to file a
`motion to strike Paper 9 is denied as moot.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01367
`Patent 8,407,609 B2
`PETITIONER:
`Eliot D. Williams
`G. Hopkins Guy
`Ali Dhanani
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`hop.guy@bakerbotts.com
`ali.dhanani@bakerbotts.com
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
