`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: April 18, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TICKETNETWORK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CEATS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2018-00004
`Patent 8,229,774 B2
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Petitioner’s Request for Permission to File a Reply
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.208(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00004 (Patent 8,229,774 B2)
`
`
`On April 13, 2018, a telephone conference was held between
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Kim, Saindon, and Cherry.
`The call was in response to Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a
`reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`On the call, Petitioner requested authorization under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.208(c) to file a reply to address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`Petitioner’s standing to request a covered business method patent review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,229,774 B2. Patent Owner opposed Petitioner’s request.
`Having heard from both parties, the panel determined that good cause
`existed for granting the request. The panel determined that supplemental
`briefing would be in the interest of maintaining a full and complete record
`on these issues. We also noted that the issue of standing may well be
`dispositive and is best resolved at the outset of the proceeding. Moreover,
`the issue of standing is necessarily highly fact dependent and requires
`assessing the totality of the circumstances. Furthermore, we note that Patent
`Owner introduced some new arguments which Petitioner could not have
`been previously aware prior to filing its Petition, including an offer for a
`covenant not to sue that was made the day of filing of the Preliminary
`Response. Thus, good cause exists to develop the record as fully as
`possible. Accordingly, the panel granted Petitioner’s request for
`authorization to file a reply.
`We further authorized Petitioner to file two additional exhibits, and an
`accompanying declaration for the purpose of authenticating these two
`exhibits only. Patent Owner did not object. Additionally, at Patent Owner’s
`request, the panel authorized Patent Owner to file a sur-reply to Petitioner’s
`reply. However, Patent Owner did not indicate a specific need for further
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00004 (Patent 8,229,774 B2)
`
`
`evidence, so we preliminarily denied Patent Owner’s request to file
`additional exhibits or evidence with its sur-reply without prior authorization.
`If Patent Owner should wish to file additional exhibits or evidence, Patent
`Owner should first meet-and-confer with Petitioner, and then request a call
`with Board.
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, limited to the issue of standing, limited to
`seven (7) pages, and due by April 20, 2017;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file two
`exhibits, and a declaration solely for the purposes of authenticating those
`two exhibits; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a Sur-
`Reply to Petitioner’s Reply, limited to the same issue and to seven (7) pages,
`which is due by April 27, 2018. Patent Owner is not permitted to file
`additional exhibits or evidence with the Sur-Reply, at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00004 (Patent 8,229,774 B2)
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`P. Weston Musselman, Jr.
`Ricardo J. Bonilla
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`musselman@fr.com
`rbonilla@fr.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`Brian Billett
`bsbillett@gmail.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
