`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: November 17, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00114 (Patent 7,206,978 B2)1
`Case IPR2017-00116 (Patent 7,334,150 B2)
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00114 (Patent 7,206,978 B2)
`IPR2017-00116 (Patent 7,334,150 B2)
`
`
`On November 16, 2017, counsel for Polaris Innovations Ltd. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) requested a conference call to seek the panel’s guidance on how to
`
`address portions of each Reply filed by Kingston Technology Company Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) that, in its view, are outside the proper scope of a reply.
`
`We will determine whether the allegedly new arguments and evidence
`
`are outside the proper scope of a reply in the final written decision. To
`
`preserve the issue in the words of the parties, we authorize Patent Owner to
`
`file, in each proceeding, a brief paper, limited to two pages, that only
`
`identifies the new and improper arguments and evidence introduced in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, generally by exhibit, page, and/or line number(s) only,
`
`and does not present any arguments. Petitioner is authorized to file, in each
`
`proceeding, a brief response, limited to two pages, that identifies the
`
`portions of the Patent Owner Response to which the new arguments and
`
`evidence identified by Patent Owner are a proper response or that identifies
`
`where this argument or evidence is presented in the Petition, also generally
`
`by exhibit, page, and/or line number(s) only. The deadlines for the
`
`respective papers are set forth below.
`
`Either party may bring up the subject at the time of oral hearing.
`
`However, our guidance at oral hearings will be the same—if we determine
`
`Petitioner’s arguments or evidence are outside the proper scope of a reply,
`
`we will not consider those arguments or evidence, and if we determine that
`
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence is responsive to the Patent Owner
`
`Response, we will consider Petitioner’s arguments and evidence.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00114 (Patent 7,206,978 B2)
`IPR2017-00116 (Patent 7,334,150 B2)
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file, in each
`
`proceeding, on or before November 27, 2017, a paper not exceeding two
`
`pages to identify the new arguments and evidence relied upon in Petitioner’s
`
`Reply that it believes to be beyond the proper scope of a reply; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file, in each
`
`proceeding, on or before December 4, 2017, a paper not exceeding two
`
`pages to identify either the portions of the Patent Owner Response to which
`
`the new arguments and evidence identified by Patent Owner is a proper
`
`response, or the portions of the Petition where the arguments and evidence
`
`were made initially.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Hoffman
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`IPR37307-0008IP1@fr.com
`
`Martha Hopkins
`LAW OFFICES OF S.J. CHRISTINE YANG
`IPR@sjclawpc.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`Nathan Lowenstein
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
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
