`
`Paper: 30
`Entered: May 16, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On May 15, 2018, a telephone conference was held pursuant to our
`Order (Paper 29) modifying the Decision on Institution (Paper 14) to
`institute on all of the grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 29, 2–3.1
`Counsel for Teradata Operations, Inc. (Petitioner) and for Realtime Data
`LLC (Patent Owner), as well as Judges Anderson, Boudreau, and Chung,
`participated in the call. The purpose of the call was to establish a procedure
`for supplemental briefing on the additional grounds instituted pursuant to
`our Order.
`
`DISCUSSION
`Prior to the call and pursuant to our Order, the parties met and
`submitted an email (email dated May 14, 2018, Ex. 3002) presenting their
`respective positions on the timing, order, and amount of supplemental
`briefing required to address the additional grounds. As a result of the
`conference call, and in consideration of the parties’ email, additional
`briefing is authorized on the following basis:
`1. By May 23, 2018, Patent Owner may file a Supplemental Brief,
`not exceeding five pages, limited to the additional grounds, specifically, the
`grounds where the primary reference is Franaszek (Ex. 1006). See Paper 29,
`2–3 (modified grounds 1–5).
`2. By May 30, 2018, Petitioner may file a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Supplemental Brief, not exceeding five pages, limited to the arguments
`
`
`1 SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018);
`see also Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings, April 26,
`2018.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`raised in Patent Owner’s Supplemental Brief. Petitioner’s Reply may also
`include a response to the Decision on Institution (Paper 14).2
`3. By June 1, 2018, Patent Owner may request authorization to file a
` sur-reply limited to addressing any new issues raised by Petitioner in
`responding to the Decision on Institution.
`Both parties stated that they had not identified any present need for
`additional evidence. If either party subsequently determines that additional
`evidence is necessary, the party is directed to arrange a call with the panel to
`request authorization to add such evidence to the record.
`The additional grounds are based on the arguments in the Petition
`(Paper 1) and supporting evidence from the current record regarding the
`Franaszek reference as a primary reference. Paper 29, 1–2. Accordingly,
`Patent Owner’s Supplemental Brief is limited to responding to the
`arguments and evidence in the Petition on the additional grounds. Similarly,
`Petitioner’s Reply is limited to the arguments raised in Patent Owner’s
`Supplemental Brief. If there is a question about whether either party’s brief
`is within the permitted scope, the parties will confer in an effort to resolve
`the issue and, if resolution is not possible, arrange a call with the panel as
`soon as practical.
`Pursuant to our post-hearing order entered February 23, 2018 (Paper
`
`
`2 We acknowledge that we stated on our May 15, 2018, call with the parties
`that a response to our Decision on Institution would not be permitted
`because, among other things, Petitioner had not requested a rehearing of the
`Decision on Institution and the time for doing so had passed. However,
`upon further consideration, we have determined that permitting such a
`response would be in the interest of justice in this case.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`25), both parties filed briefs regarding Ex Parte Schulhauser, 2016 WL
`6277792, No. 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) (hereinafter,
`“Schulhauser”). Papers 26, 27. On our May 15, 2018, call with the parties,
`we specifically advised that Schulhauser should be addressed in the context
`of the additional grounds based on Franaszek. See Decision on Institution
`(Paper 14), 22–25.
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a Supplemental
`Brief, limited to five pages, responding to the additional grounds in the
`Petition on or before May 23, 2018;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply to
`the Supplemental Brief, limited to five pages, responding to Patent Owner’s
`argument and the Decision on Institution on or before May 30, 2018;
`FURTHER ORDERED by June 1, 2018, Patent Owner may request
`authorization to file a sur-reply to address any new issues raised by
`Petitioner in responding to the Decision on Institution;
`FURTHER ORDERED that neither party is authorized to submit
`additional evidence without prior authorization of the Board; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that if either party believes the other has
`exceeded the permitted scope set forth in this Order, the parties shall meet
`and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the issue and, if agreement cannot
`be reached, arrange a conference call with the Board.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`Jamie R. Lynn
`Ali Dhanani
`Michelle Eber
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com
`ali.dhanani@bakerbotts.com
`michelle.eber@bakerbotts.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`William P. Rothwell
`Kayvan B. Noroozi
`NOROOZI PC
`william@noroozipc.com
`kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`5
`
`
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
