`
`
`Paper No. 35
`Entered: May 9, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr.
`24, 2018). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one
`of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No 7,886,122 B2 is unpatentable.
`Paper 9. We modify our Decision on Institution to institute on all the
`challenged claims and all the grounds presented in the IPR2017-00381
`Petition (Paper 2). See Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial
`Proceedings (April 26, 2018), available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-
`sas-aia-trial.
`On May 2, 2018, a conference call was held with Judges Medley,
`Parvis, and Ullagaddi and counsel for the parties in attendance. The call was
`held to give the parties an opportunity to discuss the impact of SAS with
`respect to the instant proceedings. Following the call, on May 4, 2018, we
`issued an Order authorizing the parties to file, no later than Tuesday May 8,
`2018, a joint written request regarding the non-instituted ground. Paper 33.
`On May 8, 2018, the parties submitted a joint request for additional
`briefing. Paper 34. In particular, the parties have agreed that Patent Owner
`should have five (5) pages of additional briefing and Petitioner should have
`three (3) pages of responsive briefing. Id.
`We authorize Patent Owner to file a supplemental brief in the instant
`proceeding due May 18, 2018, limited to five (5) pages, and including only
`arguments regarding the previously non-instituted, second ground—namely,
`the following ground: claims 2–4, 10–12, 17–19, 21–23, and 25–28 are
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`
`unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Lee. We also authorize
`Petitioner to file a supplemental responsive brief in the instant proceeding
`due May 25, 2018, limited to three (3) pages, and including only arguments
`responsive to Patent Owner’s aforementioned submission.
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that our Decision on Institution (Paper 9) is
`modified to include review of all challenged claims and all grounds
`presented in the IPR2017-00381 Petition (Paper 2);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`supplemental brief due May 18, 2018, limited to five (5) pages, and
`including only arguments regarding the second ground—namely, the
`following ground: claims 2–4, 10–12, 17–19, 21–23, and 25–28 are
`unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Lee; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a
`supplemental responsive brief in the instant proceeding due May 25, 2018,
`limited to three (3) pages, and including only arguments responsive to Patent
`Owner’s submission.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00381
`Patent 7,886,122 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jeremy Monaldo
`W. Karl Renner
`Katherine Lutton
`David Hoffman
`Andrew Goldberg
`Katherine Lutton
`FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
`jjm@fr.com axf-ptab@fr.com
`lutton@fr.com
`hoffman@fr.com
`goldberg@fr.com
`lutton@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Matthew Phillips
`Kevin Laurence
`Derek Meeker
`LAURENCE & PHILLIPS IP LAW LLP
`mphillips@lpiplaw.com
`kevin.laurence@renaissanceiplaw.com
`derek.meeker@meekerip.com
`
`Bryan Richardson
`WILAN INC
`brichardson@wilan.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
