`571.272.7822
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
` Entered: August 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EGENERA, INC., LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01341
`Patent 7,231,430 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, WILLIAM M. FINK, and
`MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Authorization to File a Reply
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01341 B2
`Patent 7,231,430 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In an email message to the Board, which we have entered as Exhibit
`3001, Petitioner requests authorization, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c), to file a
`reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Ex. 3001. Petitioner asserts
`that Patent Owner opposes this request. Id. In a subsequent email message
`to the Board, entered as Exhibit 3002, Patent Owner indicates it disagrees
`with Petitioner’s characterization of the issue and evidence and requests a
`hearing to address Petitioner’s request for authorization. Ex. 3002.
`Petitioner specifically requests leave to file a reply to address Patent
`Owner’s assertions that the named inventors conceived of the claimed
`subject matter before the priority date of Petitioner’s cited art. Ex. 3001.
`Petitioner argues that “good cause” exists for filing the reply because Patent
`Owner’s evidence on this issue was not available to Petitioner when this
`proceeding was filed. Id.
`Our rules allow a petitioner to seek leave to file a reply to a patent
`owner’s preliminary response, but require that “[a]ny such request must
`make a showing of good cause.” 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c). We accept
`Petitioner’s representation that the evidence on the issue was not available to
`it at the time the proceeding was filed. Accordingly, we determine
`Petitioner demonstrates sufficient good cause and grant the request. Because
`we determine that there is good cause, we deny Patent Owner’s request for a
`hearing.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 7) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the reply is limited to five pages and is
`due within 10 days of entry of this Order;
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the reply is limited to addressing Patent
`Owner’s argument and supporting evidence cited in the Preliminary
`Response that the named inventors conceived of the claimed subject matter
`before the priority date of Petitioner’s cited art; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for a hearing to
`address Petitioner’s request for authorization is denied.
`
`
`IPR2017-01341 B2
`Patent 7,231,430 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Theodore M. Foster
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Bovenkamp
`John Campbell
`McKOOL SMITH P.C.
`cbovenkamp@mckoolsmith.com
`jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`3
`
`
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
