`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 60
` Entered: June 27, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
`(d/b/a WABTEC CORPORATION),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00580
`Patent 9,233,698 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Request to Submit Supplemental Information
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00580
`Patent 9,233,698 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`In an e-mail received by the Board on June 25, 2018, counsel for
`
`Petitioner sought a conference call with the Board to request authorization to
`
`file a motion to submit supplemental information pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123(b). According to the e-mail, Petitioner seeks to submit, as
`
`supplemental information, a recent district court order on Patent Owner’s
`
`district court motion for reconsideration of claim construction (Ex. 1033).
`
`Given the limited nature of Petitioner’s request and the advanced stage of
`
`this proceeding, we determine that briefing on the motion to submit
`
`supplemental information is not necessary.
`
`
`
`We determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the
`
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) are satisfied, considering that: (1) the
`
`supplemental information could not have been obtained earlier because the
`
`district court’s order was recently entered on June 20, 2018; (2) the district
`
`court’s order may be relevant to the Board’s determination of the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a claim term, and (3) reviewing the district
`
`court’s order would place minimal additional burden on the Board. See
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267, 1272–73 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017); see also Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (“The fact that the board is not generally bound by a previous judicial
`
`interpretation of a disputed claim term does not mean, however, that it has
`
`no obligation to acknowledge that interpretation or to assess whether it is
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the term.”). Patent
`
`Owner may present arguments responsive to the submission of the
`
`supplemental information in a brief responsive paper.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00580
`Patent 9,233,698 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERD that Petitioner’s request to submit supplemental
`
`information is granted;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall submit the proposed
`
`supplemental information as an exhibit no later than one week from the date
`
`of this Order;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may submit, along with the
`
`supplemental information, a paper of no more than two pages describing the
`
`relevance of the supplemental information to the issues of this proceeding;
`
`and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may submit, no later than
`
`one week after the filing of the supplemental information, a responsive paper
`
`of no more than two pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00580
`Patent 9,233,698 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jason Engel
`Jason.engel.ptab@klgates.com
`
`Alan Barry
`Al.barry.ptab@klgates.com
`
`Benjamin Weed
`Benjamin.weed.ptab@klgates.com
`
`Katherine Hoffee
`Katy.hoffee@klgates.com
`
`Roberto Capriotti
`Roberto.capriotti@klgates.com
`
`Erik Halverson
`Erik.halverson@klgates.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jeffrey Sanok
`jsanok@crowell.com
`
`Mark Supko
`msupko@crowell.com
`
`Vincent Galluzzo
`vgalluzzo@crowell.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
