`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: July 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REGAL BELOIT AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2017-00802 and IPR2017-00803
`Patents 5,954,476 and 6,318,358 B1
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`
`All three members of the panel conducted a conference call in the
`
`above-captioned proceedings on June 30, 2017, to address Petitioner’s
`
`request for additional briefing to respond to Patent Owner’s argument that
`
`Petitioner had failed to name all real parties in interest in its Petition in each
`
`proceeding as required under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). In its Preliminary
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00802 and -00803
`Patents 5,954,476 and 6,318,358 B1
`
`Response, Patent Owner argued that Petitioner should have named two
`
`entities, Broad Ocean Motor, LLC (“BOM”) and Broad Ocean Technologies,
`
`LLC (“BOT”) as real parties in interest and that the failure to do so
`
`precludes institution of inter partes review. IPR2017-00802, Paper 8, 19–
`
`30; IPR2017-00803, Paper 6, 5–17.
`
`Given that the Decisions on Institution in both proceedings are not
`
`due until August 24, 2017, the panel finds it appropriate to permit the parties
`
`to be heard fully on the issues regarding real parties in interest that are
`
`presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses. Therefore, the panel
`
`grants Petitioner’s request for leave to file a paper on the issue and also
`
`permits Patent Owner to file its own responsive paper.
`
`During the call, the panel instructed Petitioner to address the
`
`following questions assuming arguendo that BOM should be named as a real
`
`party in interest:
`
`(i) whether Petitioner would seek to amend the Petition to add
`
`BOM as a real party in interest;
`
`(ii) if Petitioner answers (i) in the affirmative, whether the filing
`
`date of the Petition would require adjustment; and
`
`(iii) if Petitioner answers (ii) in the affirmative, whether the
`
`Petition would be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Upon further consideration, the panel also instructs Petitioner to address
`
`those same three questions assuming arguendo that BOT should be named as
`
`a real party in interest.
`
`Petitioner shall address these issues and provide any other response to
`
`Patent Owner’s argument on real parties in interest in a single paper of no
`
`more than eight pages that is filed in both proceedings by no later than
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00802 and -00803
`Patents 5,954,476 and 6,318,358 B1
`
`July 7, 2017. Patent Owner may respond to any arguments advanced in
`
`Petitioner’s paper by filing a single responsive paper of no more than eight
`
`pages that is filed in both proceedings by no later than July 14, 2017.
`
`II. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a paper in response to
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition should be denied for failing to
`
`name all real parties in interest is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file one paper in both
`
`proceedings of no more than eight pages in length by no later than
`
`July 7, 2017;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s paper shall specifically
`
`address the questions set forth above; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file one paper in both
`
`proceedings responding to Petitioner’s paper, with such paper being no more
`
`than eight pages in length and filed by no later than July 14, 2017.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00802 and -00803
`Patents 5,954,476 and 6,318,358 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Roodman
`Robert G. Lancaster
`Emma Harty
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`daroodman@bryancave.com
`rglancaster@bryancave.com
`emma.harty@bryancave.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Alan H. Norman
`Anthony F. Blum
`THOMPSON COBURN LLP
`anorman@thompsoncoburn.com
`ablum@thompsoncoburn.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
