`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 14
`
`
` Entered: July 31, 2014
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316
`
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`Patent Owner, Rembrandt Social Media, L.P., requests rehearing of
`
`the Board’s Decision to Institute (Paper 9, “Dec.”) an inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,316 (Ex. 1001, “the ’316 patent”) entered July 7,
`
`2014. Paper 12 (“Req. Reh’g”). For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner’s
`
`request for rehearing is granted, but we determine that the Petition was
`
`properly accorded a filing date of February 6, 2014.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part:
`
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for
`rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
`party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`identify
`all matters
`the party believes
`the Board
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a
`reply.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Decision misapprehends the regulatory
`
`nature of an alleged error in service of the Petition in this case. Req. Reh’g
`
`1-9. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that we misapprehended the standard
`
`for determining whether a failure to effect service on February 6, 2014, was
`
`“harmless” by focusing on whether Patent Owner’s ability to respond was
`
`prejudiced rather than on whether the failure to follow the rule was outcome
`
`determinative. Id. While we do not find these particular arguments
`
`persuasive, we grant this rehearing for the purpose of revisiting our
`
`statement that “mailing via FedEx after the cut-off time on Thursday without
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316
`
`electing Saturday delivery failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b).”
`
`Dec. 7.
`
`After further analysis, we determine that Petitioner’s service of the
`
`Petition did not fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106. Section 42.106
`
`states that “[a] petition to institute inter partes review will not be accorded a
`
`filing date until the petition . . . [e]ffects service of the petition on the
`
`correspondence address of record as provided in [§] 42.105(a).” Section
`
`42.106(a)(2) does not require compliance with § 42.105(b) for a filing date
`
`to be accorded. Thus, the Petition was properly accorded a filing date of
`
`February 6, 2014. Because there was no failure to effect service on February
`
`6, 2014, the Petition was properly accorded a filing date of February 6, 2014.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board did not abuse its discretion when
`
`it determined that the Petition was properly accorded a filing date of
`
`February 6, 2014.
`
`It is hereby
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the filing date accorded the Petition
`
`remains February 6, 2014.
`
`
`
`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
