`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 73
`
` 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
`
`
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
