`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 48
`Filed: June 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRJAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EMC CORPORATION, LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., and
`
`NETAPP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00429
`
`
`Patent 6,775,745 Bl
`
`GRANT OF GOOD CAUSE EXTENSION
`
`35 USC.§ 316(a)(ll) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.JOO(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(l 1), "the final determination in an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inter partes review [ shall] be issued not later than 1 year after the date on
`
`
`
`
`
`which the Director notices the institution of a review under this chapter,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`except that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend the I-year
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`period by not more than 6 months .... " The Director has delegated the
`
`
`
`
`
`authority to extend the one-year period to the Chief Administrative Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Judge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.lOO(c). In particular, 37 C.F.R. § 42.lOO(c)
`
`
`
`provides:
`
`
`
`iPRZO 1 7-00429
`
`Patent 6,775,745 B1
`
`An inter partes review proceeding shall be administered such
`that pendency before the Board after institution is normally no
`more than one year. The time can be extended by up to six
`months for good cause by the Chief Administrative Judge. .
`.
`.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c), the Chief Administrative Patent
`
`Judge has determined that good cause exists to extend the one-year period
`
`for issuing a Final Written Decision in this proceeding.
`
`The Supreme Court issued its decision on April 24, 2018, in SAS
`
`Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Here, SAS may affect the
`
`parties” arguments and the Board’s analysis of evidence and arguments
`
`presented, particularly with respect to non-instituted claim and grounds in
`
`the Petition. Because of the potential impact of SAS and the limited amount
`
`of time for the Board and parties to apply 8/15 to this proceeding, the Chief
`
`Administrative Patent Judge has determined that good cause exists to extend
`
`the one-year period for issuing a Final Written Decision.
`
`
`
`David P. Ruschke
`
`Chief Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00429
`
`Patent 6,775,745 Bl
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Peter Dichiara
`
`Peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos
`
`
`Theodoros.konstantakopoulos@wilmerhale.com
`
`Christopher Centurelli
`
`Christopher.centurelli@klgates.com
`Benjamin Weed
`Benjamin.weed.ptab@klgates.com
`
`Thomas Brown
`Tom.brown@emc.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brenton Babcock
`2brb@knobbe.com
`Ted M. Cannon
`2tmc@knobbe.com
`John R. King
`2jrk@knobbe.com
`
`Tim Seeley
`tims@intven.com
`James Hietala
`jhietala@intven.com
`
`3
`
`