`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00625
`Patent No. 6,641,891
`_____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REFUND
`
`
`
`
`6258082.1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Patent and Trademark Office’s Final Rule Setting and
`
`Adjusting Patent Fees, 78 Fed. Reg. 4211, 4233-34 (Jan. 18, 2013), Petitioner
`
`hereby requests a refund of the Inter Partes Review Post Institution Fee in the
`
`amount of $14,000.00 to be paid to Petitioner’s credit card.
`
`On January 7, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`claims 1,4-9,11,14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,641,891 with the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board that was assigned case number IPR2017-00625. In accordance with the fee
`
`schedule specified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a), Petitioner submitted payment in the
`
`amount of $9,000.00 with the Board at the time of filing of its Petition to cover
`
`fees associated with Petitioner’s Inter Partes Review request, and a further
`
`$14,000.00 in Post-Institution fees.
`
`On July 10, 2017, the Board entered a Decision denying institution of the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 8). On August 8, 2017 Petitioner filed
`
`a request for rehearing of the Decision Denying Institution (Paper No. 9). On
`
`October 20, 2017, the Board issued a Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing (Paper No. 11). Accordingly, Petitioner requests a refund of $14,000.00
`
`for the post-institution fees that they have paid to the USPTO in connection with
`
`the instant proceeding. See 78 Fed. Reg. 4211, 4233-34 (“The Office also chooses
`
`to return fees for post institution services should a review not be instituted . . . .The
`
`USPTO also sets the inter partes review post-institution fee at $14,000 for a review
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`of up to 15 claims. This fee would be returned to the petitioner if the Office does
`
`not institute a review. Likewise, the Office sets a per claim fee of $400 for review
`
`of each claim in excess of 15 during the post-institution trial. The entire post-
`
`institution fee would be returned to the petitioner if the Office does not institute a
`
`review.”).
`
`
`Dated: 4/30/2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Sony Corporation
`
`/Randy J. Pritzker/
`
`By______________
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`James M. Morris, Reg. No. 34,681
`Randy J. Pritzker, Reg. No. 35,986
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000/Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`I certify that on April 30, 2018, I will cause a copy of the foregoing
`
`document, including any exhibits or appendices referred to therein, to be served via
`
`electronic mail, as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following:
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`Robert C. Scheinfeld
`Neil P. Sirota
`
`Eric J. Faragi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 30, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com
`eric.faragi@bakerbotts.com
`
`/MacAulay S. Rush/
`MacAulay S. Rush
`Patent Paralegal
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
