`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 10
`
` Entered: May 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-005711
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the inter partes reviews listed in
`the Appendix. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in all of the cases.
`The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`On May 14, 2015, a conference call was held between counsel for the
`respective parties and Judges Medley, Deshpande, and DeFranco. Patent
`Owner requested the call to seek authorization to file a motion for sanctions
`against Petitioner. For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner’s request is
`denied.
`Petitioner, Ford Motor Company, filed a total of twenty-five petitions
`on six patents assigned to Patent Owner, Paice LLC & The Abell
`Foundation, Inc. We instituted review in eight of the proceedings, denied
`institution in two of the proceedings, and have not decided whether to
`institute with respect to the remaining fifteen proceedings.
`According to Patent Owner, there is considerable overlap in the
`petitions, such that more than 100 of the involved claims are challenged
`multiple times. Patent Owner argued that Petitioner’s filing of multiple
`petitions and serial challenges to many of the same claims is inconsistent
`with the Congressional intent of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`(AIA) that was designed to protect patent owners from multiple, abusive
`attacks. Patent Owner seeks leave to file a motion that would request us to
`refuse to institute review based on the alleged abuse, along with attorney
`fees.
`Petitioner countered that there is nothing in the AIA or the rules that
`preclude a Petitioner from filing multiple petitions, with multiple challenges
`of the patented claims. Petitioner also argued that its filings are a focused
`approach in response to the assertions made by Patent Owner in the related
`district court case. There, Petitioner argued, the Patent Owner asserts the
`same five patents, which all together, contain 522 claims.
`We determined that briefing is not warranted. We have not yet
`determined whether we will institute review with respect to several of the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`proceedings. Until we make a decision, the requested relief appears to us, to
`be premature.
`Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s request to file a motion for
`sanctions against Petitioner.
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to file a motion for sanctions
`against Petitioner is denied.
`
`PETITIONER
`Frank A. Angileri
`John E. Nemazi
`John P. Rondini
`Erin K. Bowles
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0110IPR2@brookskushman.com
`FPGP0104IPR3@brookskushman.com
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`
`Kevin Greenleaf
`Lissi Mojica
`DENTONS US LLP
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Linda L. Kordziel
`Brian J. Livedalen
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`riffe@fr.com
`IPR36351-0013IP1@fr.com
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,104,347 B2
`
`7,237,634 B2
`
`
`PATENT APPENDIX
`
`Inter Partes Review
`IPR2014-00571
`IPR2014-00579
`IPR2014-00884
`IPR2015-00794
`IPR2015-00795
`IPR2014-00904
`IPR2014-01416
`IPR2015-00606
`IPR2015-00722
`IPR2015-00758
`IPR2015-00784
`IPR2015-00785
`IPR2015-00787
`IPR2015-00790
`IPR2015-00791
`IPR2015-00799
`IPR2015-00800
`IPR2015-00801
`IPR2015-00767
`IPR2014-00875
`IPR2014-00570
`IPR2014-01415
`IPR2015-00792
`
`7,455,134 B2
`7,559,388 B2
`8,214,097 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
