`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 30
`Entered: September 6, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYS.,
`INC., RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, HP INC., ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., AND ARRIS
`GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00642
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, SCOTT A. DANIELS,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00642
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`We have considered Petitioner’s Motion for Requesting Acceptance
`
`of Submission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2)(i)(A)-(B) (“Motion”) and Patent
`Owner’s Opposition thereto. Papers 25, 29. Submitting a paper along with
`a Motion Requesting Authorization to Accept Submission is one of the ways
`in which a party may file that paper with the Board. Here, Petitioner
`attempted to file electronically a Request for Rehearing on Friday, August
`25, and failing to do so properly, submitted the Request for Rehearing to the
`Board via email without the requisite Motion. Petitioner filed the Motion
`electronically on Wednesday, August 30, after Petitioner’s deadline to file a
`Request for Rehearing. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner should
`have attempted to file properly on Monday, August 28, instead of waiting
`for instructions from the Board on how to correct the flawed filing.
`Nevertheless, we recognize that Petitioner’s unfamiliarity with the Board’s
`rules, which this panel has noted previously, is alone not a reason to deny
`entry of the Request for Rehearing. We find that Petitioner acted diligently
`to file the Motion after the Board indicated the applicable rule. We further
`find that Petitioner timely served the Request for Rehearing. Finally,
`considering that this mishap involves Petitioner’s only recourse following a
`denial of institution, we excuse the late action because consideration on the
`merits would be in the interests of justice. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3).
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion is granted; and
`
`
`
`It is FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing,
`
`Exhibit 1023, is accepted in the record.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00642
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Nima Hefazi
`Rebecca Carson
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`nhefazi@irell.com
`rcarson@irell.com
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Kathryn N. Hong
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`kathryn.hong@ropesgray.com
`
`Ronald Wielkopolski
`Don F. Livornese
`Korula Cherian
`RUYAK CHERIAN LLP
`ronw@ruyakcherian.com
`donl@ruyakcherian.com
`sunnyc@ruyakcherian.com
`
`Patrick McPherson
`Joseph A. Powers
`Patrick Muldoon
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`JAPowers@duanemorris.com
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`John R. Kasha
`Kelly Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`