throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: December 22, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WALGREEN CO., AHOLD USA, INC., DELHAIZE AMERICA, LLC,
`AND PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED MARKETING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases CBM2016-00012
`CBM2016-00013
`CBM2016-00014
`CBM2016-00015
`Patents 8,219,445 B2
`8,370,199 B2
`8,538,805 B2
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2016-00012, -00013, -00014, and -00015
`Patent 8,219,445 B2; 8,370,199 B2; and 8,538,805 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On December 21, 2016, pursuant to Patent Owner’s request, we
`conducted a telephone conference to determine whether to authorize Patent
`Owner (1) to file a surreply in response to Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 321 (“the
`Reply”), and (2) to move to strike the Declaration of Dr. Michael Lewis,
`Ex. 10092 (“the Lewis Declaration”). Attorneys for both parties and Judges
`Giannetti, Jefferson, and Weatherly attended the conference.
`A. REQUEST TO FILE A SURREPLY
`Patent Owner requests authorization to file a surreply in response to
`arguments raised in Petitioner’s Reply. Patent Owner was asked to identify
`arguments in the Reply that Patent Owner believed to be new and
`nonresponsive to arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 233
`(“the PO Resp.”). Patent Owner identified none.
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner contends that a surreply is warranted to
`address Petitioner’s arguments relating to claim interpretation based upon
`portions of the file history of the patents-at-issue. In response, Petitioner
`contends that its arguments were responsive to positions on claim
`interpretation that Patent Owner advanced in the Patent Owner Response.
`We agree. Moreover, because the prosecution history is evidence that
`existed prior to the institution of these proceedings, both parties have had
`ample opportunity in the papers already filed to rely upon such evidence to
`support their respective positions.
`
`
`1 Paper 31 in each of CBM2016-00013, -00014, and -00015.
`2 Exhibit 1008 in CBM2016-00013.
`3 Paper 22 in each of CBM2016-00013, -00014, and -00015.
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2016-00012, -00013, -00014, and -00015
`Patent 8,219,445 B2; 8,370,199 B2; and 8,538,805 B2
`
`Patent Owner also contends that a surreply will allow it to introduce
`evidence relating to the parties’ positions on claim interpretation that were
`advanced in the related district court proceedings. Both parties agree that
`such evidence existed before Patent Owner filed its Patent Owner Response.
`Accordingly, such evidence could have been raised by either party in
`connection with their respective filings of the Patent Owner Response or the
`Reply. If Patent Owner had wished to proffer such evidence, it could have
`done so in connection with its Patent Owner Response, and Petitioner would
`have had an opportunity to respond in its Reply.
`In its e-mail to the Board of December 14, 2016, Patent Owner also
`identified other reasons that it contends justify its need for a surreply. Those
`reasons include contentions that Petitioner “distorts” facts or testimony and
`“inaccurately asserts lack of written description.” We are not persuaded that
`any of these reasons warrant the filing of a surreply. Distortions and
`inaccuracies in the parties’ respective positions are discernable from the
`evidence and argument already of record.
`A surreply is not a vehicle for Patent Owner simply to have the last
`word. Based upon our consideration of the arguments presented during the
`conference call and the record of the proceedings to date, we are
`unpersuaded that a surreply is justified and do not authorize Patent Owner to
`file such a surreply.
`B. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE TO STRIKE THE LEWIS
`DECLARATION
`Patent Owner seeks authorization to move to strike the Lewis
`Declaration in its entirety, based upon the principles set forth in Daubert v.
`Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). We informed
`Patent Owner that a motion to strike the Lewis Declaration is not the
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2016-00012, -00013, -00014, and -00015
`Patent 8,219,445 B2; 8,370,199 B2; and 8,538,805 B2
`
`appropriate vehicle for seeking such relief. Rather, such relief may be given,
`if at all, in response to a motion to exclude evidence filed pursuant to the
`procedures set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, the filing of which does not
`require prior authorization from the Board. We also reminded Patent Owner
`that, for the Board to consider the merits of a motion to exclude the Lewis
`Declaration, the motion must meet the procedural requirements set forth in
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), (c). Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s request for
`authorization to move to strike the Lewis Declaration.
`II. ORDER
`For the reasons expressed above, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a
`surreply is denied; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization
`to move to strike the Lewis Declaration is denied.
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2016-00012, -00013, -00014, and -00015
`Patent 8,219,445 B2; 8,370,199 B2; and 8,538,805 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`Phillip Citroën
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`AMS-Walgreens-PH@paulhasting.com
`
`Holly Hawkins Saporito
`Joshua Weeks
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`holly.saporito@alston.com
`joshua.weeks@alston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael A. Messina
`Ajay A. Jagtiani
`Mae Hong
`MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C.
`Messina-PTAB@milesstockbridge.com
`ajagtiani@milesstockbridge.com
`mhong@milesstockbridge.com
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket