`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 25
`
` Date: March 16, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s final written decision in this case
`and remanded to the Board for proceedings consistent with Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith
`& Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d. 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`Inc., No. 18-2431, ECF No. 44 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2020) (“Remand Order”)
`(Exhibit 3001). The Federal Circuit’s mandate issued on April 2, 2020. Id. at ECF
`No. 50.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`
`This case was held in abeyance on May 1, 2020, and that abeyance was
`lifted on October 26, 2021. Papers 22, 23.
`Pursuant to an email sent to the parties on January 18, 2022 (Exhibit 3002),
`the parties filed a Joint Proposed Procedure on Remand (Paper 24). The parties
`state that they agree that “the procedure on remand should include the issuance of a
`final written decision” but disagree “on whether additional steps are needed
`beforehand.” Paper 24, 1. Patent Owner proposes “[a] hearing before a new panel,
`followed by a final written decision issued by the new panel.” Id. Petitioner
`asserts that “[t]he previous panel may reissue the previous final written decision,
`after which Patent Owner may seek Director Review if it chooses.” Id.
`The Federal Circuit’s Remand Order issued prior to the Supreme Court’s
`decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021). As discussed
`above, the parties disagree as to how this case should proceed on remand. Thus, if
`either party desires clarification regarding the Federal Circuit’s Remand Order, that
`party may seek such clarification at the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the parties have up to ten business days from the date of this
`order to seek clarification regarding the Federal Circuit’s Remand Order at the
`Federal Circuit;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Board within ten
`business days from the date of this order whether either party seeks any such
`clarification; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that if either party seeks clarification at the Federal
`Circuit, the parties shall notify the Board within five business days of any
`disposition by the Federal Circuit on the request for clarification.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00058
`Patent 7,804,948 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`David McCombs
`Theodore Foster
`Dina Blikshteyn
`Jamie McDole
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`dina.bliksheteyn.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamies.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean Burdick
`UNILOC USA, Inc.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
