`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: March 13, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT SOCIAL MEDIA, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316
`
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316
`
`
`On March 12, 2015, Patent Owner requested a conference call to
`
`obtain the Board’s guidance on how to address new arguments in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and supporting declaration. Patent Owner alleges that
`
`Petitioner argues for the first time that those of skill in the art would
`
`recognize that the client-side “file system” necessarily enforces the “can
`
`view” and “can edit” restrictions disclosed in Salas. Patent Owner requests
`
`that the Board strike this argument as untimely or, in the alternative, grant
`
`Patent Owner permission to submit a supplemental expert declaration with
`
`an accompanying short explanatory statement.
`
`The Board will determine whether the new evidence is outside the
`
`proper scope of a reply when writing the final written decision. To preserve
`
`the issue in the words of the parties, Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`
`brief statement, limited to two pages, that identifies the new argument and
`
`evidence introduced in Petitioner’s Reply. Petitioner is authorized to file a
`
`brief response, limited to two pages, that identifies the portion of the Patent
`
`Owner Response to which the new evidence identified by Patent Owner is a
`
`proper response. Also, either party may bring up the subject at the time of
`
`oral hearing. If, while preparing the final written decision, we agree with the
`
`Patent Owner that the references are beyond the proper scope of a reply,
`
`then the Petitioner’s new arguments will not be considered. If, on the other
`
`hand, the arguments and evidence are merely responsive to positions taken
`
`by the Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response, then they are proper and
`
`will be considered.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that:
`
`ORDER
`
`(1) no later than five (5) days after entry of this Order, Patent Owner
`
`is authorized to file a paper not exceeding two (2) pages to identify the new
`
`evidence relied upon in Petitioner’s Reply that it believes to be beyond the
`
`proper scope of a reply;
`
`(2) no later than five (5) days after the filing of the above paper by
`
`Patent Owner, Petitioner is authorized to file a paper not exceeding two (2)
`
`pages to identify the portion of the Patent Owner Response to which the new
`
`evidence identified by Patent Owner is a proper response.
`
`.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Mark R. Weinstein
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert H. Hillman
`Lawrence K. Kolodney
`John S. Goetz
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`hillman@fr.com
`kolodney@fr.com
`goetz@fr.com
`IPR2014-00415@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
