throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 56
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: August 30, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIDSTREAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`On August 27, 2018, Patent Owner contacted the Board by e-mail
`
`seeking permission to file sur-replies in the above-captioned cases in lieu of
`
`observations on cross-examination. Ex. 3008. Patent Owner contends that
`
`its request is consistent with the recent updates to the Board’s Trial Practice
`
`Guide and will “afford Patent Owner an opportunity to address new
`
`evidence and new arguments first raised in Petitioner’s recent Replies.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner represents that Petitioner opposes its request. Id.
`
`The August 2018 Update to the Trial Practice Guide2 (“Trial Practice
`
`Guide Update”) states that “[s]ur-replies to principal briefs (i.e., to a reply to
`
`a patent owner response or to a reply to an opposition to a motion to amend)
`
`normally will be authorized by the scheduling order entered at institution.”
`
`Trial Practice Guide Update 14. The Trial Practice Guide Update further
`
`states that its “sur-reply practice essentially replaces the previous practice of
`
`filing observations on cross-examination testimony.” Id.
`
`We entered an Order in these proceedings updating the schedule on
`
`May 14, 2018.3 That Order sets DUE DATE 4 for “[o]bservations regarding
`
`cross-examination of reply witness” as September 14, 2018. Patent Owner
`
`does not seek to change DUE DATE 4, but rather seeks to file a sur-reply
`
`instead of observations. See Ex. 3008.
`
`We determine Patent Owner’s request is consistent with the Trial
`
`Practice Guide Update, and that request is granted. Patent Owner’s sur-reply
`
`shall be subject to the limits discussed in the Trial Practice Guide Update,
`
`
`2 Available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP.
`3 Paper 38 in IPR2017-00829; Paper 39 in IPR2017-00830; Paper 38 in
`IPR2017-01131; Paper 35 in IPR2017-01133.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`including that the sur-reply may only respond to arguments made in
`
`Petitioner’s reply brief, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to
`
`cross-examination testimony; and may not be accompanied by new evidence
`
`other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply
`
`witness. Trial Practice Guide Update 14–15. In addition, Patent Owner’s
`
`sur-reply is subject to the same word limit as Petitioner’s reply. Id. at 6.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to file a sur-reply in lieu of
`
`observations is granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order (Paper 13) as
`
`amended by the May 14, 2018 Order is further revised to reflect DUE
`
`DATES 4–7 provided in the Due Date Appendix below but is unchanged in
`
`all other respects.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 4 ................................................................... September 14, 2018
`
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s
`response to petition
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................... September 28, 2018
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ......................................................................... October 5, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ....................................................................... October 19, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`IPR2017-00829, -00830
`David McCombs
`Gregory Huh
`Theodore Foster
`Raghav Bajaj
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`Raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`IPR2017-01131, -01133
`Todd Siegel
`Andrew Mason
`Robert T. Cruzen
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`Todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`Andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`Rob.cruzen@klarquist.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott McKeown
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Scott.mckeown@ropes.gray.com
`
`Spencer C. Patterson
`GRABLE MARTIN FULTON PLLC
`patterson@gchub.com
`
`Stephen L. Levine
`CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P.
`slevine@ccsb.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00829 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-00830 (Patent 9,083,997 B2)
`IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket