throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: January 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC, WIDEOPENWEST
`FINANCE, LLC, KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC., and
`BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`Case: IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`Case: IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2) and
`Case: IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Authorization to File
`Supplemental Information
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`
`On January 18, 2017, Petitioner contacted the Board (by e-mail, Ex.
`3003) to request authorization to file rebuttal opinions by its declarant as
`supplemental information. Prior to institution, Petitioner submitted these
`declarations without authorization and we, therefore, expunged them. See,
`e.g., IPR2016-01259, Paper 21.2 Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request.
`We agree with Patent Owner.
`Submission of rebuttal testimonial evidence by Petitioner is premature
`at this juncture of the proceeding. We recently instituted trial in each of the
`instant cases and do not yet have Patent Owner’s Response or Motion to
`Amend, if any, as these submissions are due in April. See, e.g., IPR2016-
`01259, Paper 24.
`In its request, Petitioner referenced our Order (see, e.g., IPR2016-
`01259, Paper 21) on Petitioner’s earlier unauthorized submission of its
`declarations. Petitioner now has the benefit of our analysis in our Decision
`to Institute in each case (see, e.g., IPR2016-01259, Paper 23) as well as each
`of our Scheduling Orders setting forth, for example, times in each case for
`the Patent Owner’s Response and the Petitioner’s Reply, as well as our
`cautionary statement reminding Patent Owner that any arguments for
`patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived (See, e.g.,
`IPR2016-01259, Paper 24, 3, 6).
`Petitioner’s request to submit rebuttal evidence does not take into
`account that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the
`corresponding opposition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 (b). Furthermore,
`
`
`2 Citations herein will be to IPR2016-01259, unless otherwise noted.
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`Petitioner’s proposal to submit just its evidence does not take into account
`our requirement that such evidence must be explained. See 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22, 42.23 (“Oppositions and replies must comply with the
`content requirements of motions” and “[e]ach . . . motion . . . must include
`. . . [a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.”).
`Based on the current record before us, we agree with Patent Owner
`that Petitioner’s submission of rebuttal evidence at this juncture should not
`be authorized.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request (Ex. 3003) to submit rebuttal
`opinions by its declarant as supplemental information is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01259 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`IPR2016-01261 (Patent 8,457,113 B2)
`IPR2016-01262 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`IPR2016-01263 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Wayne Stacy
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brent Bumgardner
`John Murphy
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`murphy@nelbum.com

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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.

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.