`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: August 8, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01433
`Patent 7,757,298 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion to Excuse Late Filing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01433
`Patent 7,757,298 B2
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner contacted the Board via email to request that its Reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 16) be treated as timely filed. The email
`
`indicated that the parties had conferred, that Patent Owner did not object to
`
`Petitioner’s request, and that the parties were willing to stipulate to an
`
`extension of the due date for filing Petitioner’s Reply. After considering the
`
`request, Petitioner was authorized to file a motion seeking to excuse the late
`
`filing of the Reply, and because Patent Owner did not object, an opposition
`
`to the motion was not authorized.
`
`Petitioner subsequently filed an “Unopposed Motion to Excuse the
`
`Late Filing of Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent Owner Response.” Paper 17
`
`(“Mot.”).
`
`For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion is granted.
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`The due date for Petitioner’s Reply was July 19, 2017. Paper 7, 8.
`
`Our filing system indicates that Petitioner’s Reply and supporting Exhibit
`
`1035 were filed early on July 20, 2017. See also Mot. 1, ¶ 4. According to
`
`Petitioner, it experienced technical difficulties in filing its paper and exhibit.
`
`Mot. 1, ¶¶ 2–3. Petitioner argues that the technical difficulties provide good
`
`cause for excusing the late filing. Id. at 2–3. In addition, Petitioner argues
`
`that excusing the late filing would be in the interests of justice because
`
`Patent Owner could not have suffered any actual prejudice from “not
`
`hav[ing] these documents a few hours earlier.” Id. at 4–5. Petitioner
`
`indicates that to obviate any possible prejudice, it has offered to extend any
`
`subsequent deadline by one day. Id. at 5.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01433
`Patent 7,757,298 B2
`
`
`A late action will be excused either on a showing of good cause or
`
`upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits would be in the
`
`interest of justice. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3). Weighing the prejudice to Patent
`
`Owner of the few hours delay in filing the Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit
`
`1035 against the prejudice to Petitioner of not considering the late-filed
`
`paper and exhibit, we determine that it is in the interest of justice to excuse
`
`Petitioner’s late action in this proceeding. We consider it to be in the
`
`interest of justice to have the benefit of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply as
`
`part of the record, and refusal to consider them as a consequence of a few
`
`hours’ delay would not be in the interest of justice.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that
`
`Petitioner’s “Unopposed Motion to Excuse the Late Filing of Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to the Patent Owner Response” is granted.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01433
`Patent 7,757,298 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Alexander Walden
`Frank Fabiani
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`alexander.walden@bryancave.com
`frank.fabiani@bryancave.com
`298IPR@bryancave.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. King
`Ted M. Cannon
`Bridget A. Smith
`KNOBBE, MARTINS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2jrk@knobbe.com
`2tmc@knobbe.com
`2bzs@knobbe.com
`BoxPGL40@knobbe.com
`
`Tim R. Seeley
`James R. Hietala
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`tim@intven.com
`jhietala@intven.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
