`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Date: February 10, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2020-00038
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Petitioner’s Request to file a Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.108(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`On February 7, 2020, a conference call was held involving counsel for
`the respective parties and Judges Medley and Baer. The purpose of the
`conference call was for Petitioner to seek authorization to file a reply to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “POPR”). Patent Owner
`opposes the filing of a reply.
`During the conference call, Petitioner argued we should authorize a
`reply so that Petitioner may address certain arguments made at POPR pages
`8 to 9. In particular, Petitioner contended that there is good cause for
`considering a reply, because Petitioner could not have anticipated arguments
`made by Patent Owner regarding (1) misstatements made; (2) an incorrect
`expansion of one of the factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B.
`Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017)
`(precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph); and (3) the cumulative
`nature of art before the examiner and the art presented in the Petition.
`Our rules do not automatically authorize a petitioner to file a reply to
`a preliminary response. Rather, a petitioner seeking leave to file a reply
`must make a showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); see also Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 51–52 (Nov.
`2019)1 (consolidating prior Trial Practice Guide and updates) (“[T]he Board
`does not expect that such a [request to file a] reply will be granted in many
`cases due to the short time period the Board has to reach a decision on
`institution”). Based on the facts of this case and the arguments presented
`during the call, we disagree that further briefing would be helpful or is
`warranted under the good cause standard. For the foregoing reasons,
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`Petitioner’s request to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is
`denied.
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to file a reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response is denied.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Martin Bader
`Nam Kim
`Harper Batts
`Mike Kim
`Trevor Quist
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`nkim@sheppardmullin.com
`hbatts@sheppardmullin.com
`tquist@sheppardmullin.com
`LegalTm-Lenovo-Uniloc-IPRs@sheppardmullin.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
`
`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
