`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 80
`Entered April 30, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`R2 SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00705; Case IPR2017-00706
`Case IPR2017-00707; Case IPR2017-00708
`Case IPR2017-01123; Case IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.1
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 All paper numbers referenced herein are to IPR2017-00705.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`A conference call was held on April 30, 2018. The participants were
`
`respective counsel for the parties, and Judges Lee, Bisk, and Homere.
`
`Patent Owner objected to Petitioner’s demonstrative slides 50 and 52,
`on the basis that they do not “present complete evidence.”2 We explained
`that in Petitioner’s slides, Petitioner may refer to select portions of the
`evidence. Patent Owner objected to Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 106, on
`the basis that “it appears to present evidence cited in the Petition in support
`of new arguments in support of Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s
`motions to amend.”3 We explained that the objection is based on mere
`speculation and thus inappropriate. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s objections
`to Petitioner’s demonstrative slides 50, 52, and 106 are denied.
`
`We asked Patent Owner why it filed confidential versions of the
`Patent Owner Response, and confidential versions of various exhibits,
`without having filed a Motion to Seal, as is required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`Counsel for Patent Owner provided no answer except that it was an
`oversight. We authorize Patent Owner to file a Motion to Seal, directed to
`all the documents it had filed under confidentiality thus far. In that regard,
`we brought to Patent Owner’s attention the following: Paper 27, IPR2017-
`01053; Papers 25, 41, 46, 47, and 49, IPR2014-00440. Any Motion to Seal
`must explain why balancing the public interest in knowing the reasoning
`
`
`2 This language is taken from Patent Owner’s email communication of April
`27, 2018, which we have entered as the next numbered exhibit in the 3000
`series. In IPR2017-00705, that is Exhibit 3002.
`3 This language is taken from Patent Owner’s email communication of April
`27, 2018, which we have entered as the next numbered exhibit in the 3000
`series. In IPR2017-00705, that is Exhibit 3002.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`behind the Board’s patentability determination with Patent Owner’s interest
`in keeping information confidential leads to good cause in sealing the
`information at issue.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the oral hearing to be held on May 1, 2018, will be
`open to the public;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential version of Patent
`Owner’s demonstrative slides (Paper 75), filed on April 27, 2018, will be
`expunged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall have until May 8,
`2018, to file a Motion to Seal, addressing the documents it has, thus far, filed
`with a confidentiality restriction;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has until May 15, 2018, to file
`an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner has until May 20, 2018, to
`file a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Richard Goldenberg
`Donald Steinberg
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`James Glass
`John McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.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
