`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 34
`Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NEXEON LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ONED MATERIAL, LLC,
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00851
`
`
`Patent 8,440,369 B2
`
`GRANT OF GOOD CAUSE EXTENSION
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(ll) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.JOO(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(l l), "the final determination in an
`
`
`
`
`
`inter partes review [ shall] be issued not later than 1 year after the date on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which the Director notices the institution of a review under this chapter,
`
`
`
`except that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend the 1-year
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`period by not more than 6 months ... . " The Director has delegated the
`
`
`
`
`
`authority to extend the one-year period to the Chief Administrative Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Judge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100( c ). In particular, 37 C.F.R. § 42.100( c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provides:
`
`
`
`IPR2017—0085 1
`
`Patent 8,440,369 B2
`
`An inter partes review proceeding shail be administered such
`that pendency before the Board after institution is normally no
`more than one year. The time can be extended by up to six
`months for good cause by the Chief Administrative Judge. .
`.
`.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c), the Chief Administrative Patent
`
`Judge has determined that good cause exists to extend the one—year period
`
`for issuing a Finai Written Decision in this proceeding.
`
`The Supreme Court issued its decision on April 24, 2018, in SAS
`
`Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Here, SAS may affect the
`
`parties’ arguments and the Board’s analysis of evidence and arguments
`
`presented, particularly with respect to non—instituted grounds in the Petition.
`
`Because of the potential impact of SAS and the limited amount of time for
`
`the Board and parties to apply SAS to this proceeding, the Chief
`
`Administrative Patent Judge has determined that good cause exists to extend
`
`the one-year period for issuing a Final Written Decision.
`
`9W2" i? Mu
`
`David P. Ruschke
`
`Chief Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00851
`Patent 8,440,369 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`S. Richard Carden
`James V. Suggs
`
`McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`carden@mbhb.com
`suggs@mbhb.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`
`3
`
`