`571.272.7822 Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01751
` Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01753
` Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01754
` Paper No. 11, IPR2016-01755
` Entered: January 9, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ROBERT BOSCH TOOL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`SD3, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01750 (Patent 7,225,712 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01751 (Patent 7,600,455 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01753 (Patent 7,895,927 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01754 (Patent 8,011,279 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01755 (Patent 8,191,450 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`Authorizing Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that apply to the six cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of the cases.
`The parties are not authorized to use this heading style in their papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01750; Case IPR2016-01751; Case IPR2016-01753;
`Case IPR2016-01754; Case IPR2016-01755
`
`
`Petitioner (Robert Bosch Tool Corporation) filed petitions for inter
`partes review in each of the above captioned proceedings on September 14,
`2016. See Paper 1 of IPR2016-01750, IPR2016-01751, IPR2016-01754 and
`IPR2016-01755 and Paper 2 of IPR2016-01753. In each of these
`proceedings, Patent Owner (SD3, LLC) filed a Preliminary Response,
`arguing that institution of an inter partes review is time barred by 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(b) because each proceeding was filed more than one year after the
`date on which Petitioner was served with a complaint in the United States
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging infringement of each
`respective patent. See Paper 9 in each IPR.
`Because only a few prior Board decisions have discussed this § 315(b)
`issue raised in each Patent Owner Preliminary Response, we have
`determined that a reply from Petitioner on this issue would be beneficial.
`Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response limited to whether the time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) applies to a
`complaint filed with the ITC. Petitioner’s Reply shall be filed separately in
`each proceeding by January 27, 2017, and the Reply shall be no more than
`five pages. Patent Owner is not currently authorized to file a sur-reply.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s is authorized to file a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response in each of the proceedings on or before
`January 27, 2017, and the Reply shall be limited to five pages;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01750; Case IPR2016-01751; Case IPR2016-01753;
`Case IPR2016-01754; Case IPR2016-01755
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Reply is limited to
`responding to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the issue of whether the
`time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) applies to a complaint filed with the ITC.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01750; Case IPR2016-01751; Case IPR2016-01753;
`Case IPR2016-01754; Case IPR2016-01755
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Patrick R. Colsher
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`patrick.colsher@shearman.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jared W. Newton
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jarednewton@quinnemanuel.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
