`Entered: November 30, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YODLEE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2016-00056
`Patent 6,510,451 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`A trial was instituted in this case on October 3, 2016. Paper 10. By
`rule, a request for rehearing of the decision to institute trial was due on
`October 17, 2016. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (stating that a request for rehearing
`is due “[w]ithin 14 days of the entry of . . . a decision to institute a trial”).
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00056
`Patent 6,510,451 B2
`
`On November 28, 2016, Patent Owner contacted the Board to request
`permission to file a late request for rehearing concerning the Decision on
`Institution in view of the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit in Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2014-00006,
`2016 WL 6832978 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016), which ruled that the Board’s
`reliance on whether the patent claims activities “incidental to” or
`“complimentary to” a financial activity as the legal standard for determining
`whether a patent is a covered business method patent was not in accordance
`with the law. Id. at *5. Patent Owner asserts further that considering the
`late request could abrogate the need for conducting the balance of the trial,
`thereby conserving resources. Petitioner opposes this request, and in the
`event it is granted, requests permission to file a response.
`We are six weeks past the due date for filing the aforementioned
`request for rehearing. The next due date is January 10, 2017, where Patent
`Owner will have the opportunity to file a response to the Petition. Paper 12.
`Furthermore, the panel has briefly considered the merits of Patent Owner’s
`position, and we discern that whether or not the claim limitation “wherein
`the multi-component task involves arranging services for a trip, including
`one or more of airline reservations, lodging reservations, or reservation of a
`rental vehicle” meets the standard set forth in Unwired Planet is not one that
`can be readily resolved without a full trial. Additionally, whether or not a
`patent is a covered business method patent is an issue addressed regularly in
`patent owner responses. On these facts, we are unpersuaded that Patent
`Owner has shown good cause to file a late request for rehearing concerning
`the Decision on Institution. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c) (“A late action will
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00056
`Patent 6,510,451 B2
`
`excused on a showing of good cause or upon a Board decision that
`consideration of the merits would be in the interests of justice.”).
`For these reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a late
`request for rehearing concerning the Decision on Institution is DENIED.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00056
`Patent 6,510,451 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`Yvonne Lee
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`yvonne.lee@wilmerhale.com
`
`Brian Buroker
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David Hoffman
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`CBM12233-0050CP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.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
