`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 68
`
` Entered: April 20, 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.
`
`
`
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Authorization to File Observations
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`
`On April 19, 2017, counsel for the parties and the panel participated in
`a conference call.1 The subject of the call was Patent Owner’s request to file
`a motion for observation of portions of an April 8, 2018 cross-examination
`deposition of Patent Owner’s own expert, Dr. Massoud Pedram. Dr. Pedram
`was being cross-examined with respect to his Declaration submitted in
`support of Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Amend Claims. Although Petitioner has not referred, in
`its Surreply to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend Claims, to any of the
`testimony from the cross-examination, Patent Owner requested to file a
`Motion for Observations on Cross Examination, allegedly to clarify
`statements made by Dr. Pedram in a different Declaration that was submitted
`in support of Patent Owner’s Response. Counsel for Patent Owner did not
`identify any testimony in the previous Declaration of Dr. Pedram that it
`wants to discredit or undermine by pointing to inconsistent testimony in the
`subject cross-examination. Rather, he sought to add to that previous
`Declaration, on an alleged basis of “clarification.” Thus is not an
`appropriate use of a Motion for Observations on Cross Examination. We
`denied Patent Owner’s request because a motion for observation is an
`inappropriate vehicle for introducing what amounts to supplemental briefing,
`particularly with respect to a matter that was not the subject of cross-
`examination.
`Shortly after the call, Patent Owner emailed the Board requesting
`authorization to file “a short, 3-page supplemental brief identifying the
`
`
`1 All citations in this Order are to IPR2017-00705.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`portions of Dr. Pedram’s testimony identified in our April 17th email to the
`Board [Ex. 3002], with brief explanation of its relevance.” Ex. 3003. Patent
`Owner added that “Petitioner opposes this request.” Id. Patent Owner did
`not request a call to provide further explanation, but added potential dates in
`the event “the Board require[s] an additional hearing.” Id.
`Even taking into consideration the lengthy discussion at our
`conference call, the lack of clarity in the subsequent email leaves the panel
`with no understanding of the nature of the supplemental briefing being
`requested. For example, Patent Owner has not indicated if this supplemental
`briefing would be a Surreply to Petitioner’s Reply to the Petition. Patent
`Owner has not indicated any particular rule on which it relies. Patent Owner
`has not indicated the subject or purpose of the supplemental briefing. Patent
`Owner also has not indicated how this extra briefing would affect the
`schedule given that oral hearing in this case is scheduled for May 1, 2018.
`Most importantly, Patent Owner has not indicated why such additional
`briefing should be authorized. Nor has Patent Owner addressed any
`potential prejudice to Petitioner.
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file
`supplemental briefing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`