`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: November 25, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`and SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`WEIDENFELLER, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`Denying Authorization to File Motion to Strike Petitioner’s Reply
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51
`
`
`1 This decision pertains to Cases IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751, and IPR2015-
`01752, as Petitioner’s Requests for Rehearing are substantively the same in each
`case. Citations are to the paper numbers in Case IPR2015-01750.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`
`On November 2, 2020, counsel for Applications in Internet Time, LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) requested authorization to file a motion to strike arguments in
`Petitioner’s Reply in support of its request for rehearing (Paper 136). On
`November 6, 2020, the panel held a conference call with the parties to consider
`Patent Owner’s request. A court reporter was present for the conference, and
`Patent Owner filed a copy of the transcript as an exhibit. Ex. 1107 (“Tr.”).
`Patent Owner requests authorization to strike two portions of Petitioner’s
`Reply that allegedly raise new issues. First, Patent Owner contends that
`Petitioner’s Reply presents, for the first time, statutory arguments alleging that the
`panel change order (Paper 124) is a violation of 35 U.S.C. § 6(c) and 5 U.S.C.
`§ 554(d). Tr. 5:3–20. Second, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s Reply
`presents a new explanation of how RPX meets the protected interest requirement
`of the due process clause. Id. at 5:21–6:18.
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request and asserts that both of the
`arguments identified by Patent Owner are responsive to arguments made by Patent
`Owner in its Response. Id. at 7:15–18. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the
`statutory arguments included in its Reply are in response to Patent Owner’s
`assertions that “[n]o equivalent statutory or regulatory provisions are applicable to
`board proceedings, and certainly not determination decisions by the board.” Id. at
`9:3–5. Petitioner further asserts that its Reply explains the basis for RPX’s
`protected interest in response to Patent Owner’s assertion that RPX lacked such an
`interest. Id. at 7:19–8:2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`Our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide2 states that “striking the entirety or a
`portion of a party’s brief is an exceptional remedy that the Board expects will be
`granted rarely.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 80–81. However, striking the
`entirety or a portion of a party’s brief may be appropriate where it is “beyond
`dispute” that an issue raised therein is new. Id. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`Reply in view of the arguments set forth by Patent Owner and we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner’s Reply clearly or indisputably presents new arguments
`as urged by Patent Owner.
`Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to authorize Patent Owner
`to file a motion to strike portions of Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a Motion to
`Strike Petitioner’s Reply is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Accessible at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated; see also 84
`Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01750 (Patent 8,484,111 B2)
`IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (Patent 7,356,482 B2)
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Richard F. Giunta
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`Randy J. Pritzker
`Michael N. Rader
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven C. Sereboff
`Jonathan Pearce
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`jpearce@socalip.com
`uspto@socalip.com
`
`Andrea Pacelli
`Robert Whitman
`KING & WOOD MALLESONS
`Andrea.Pacelli@us.kwm.com
`robert.whitman@us.kwm.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
