`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: May 7, 2018
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NAUTILUS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ICON HEALTH & FITNESS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01363 (Patent 9,403,047 B2);
`Case IPR2017-01407 (Patent 9,616,276 B2);
`Case IPR2017-01408 (Patent 9,616,276 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to all three proceedings. These proceedings have not
`been consolidated. The parties may use a consolidated caption only if a
`paper contains a footnote indicating that the identical paper has been filed in
`each proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01363 (Patent 9,403,047 B2)
`IPR2017-01407 (Patent 9,616,276 B2)
`IPR2017-01408 (Patent 9,616,276 B2)
`
`In an email to the Board dated May 4, 2018, counsel for Petitioner
`
`stated that pursuant to the Board’s Order of April 27, 2018, “[t]he parties
`have conferred and agree that no modifications will be necessary in light of
`the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS and the Board’s broader institution
`order.”
`
`Petitioner’s email further requests a conference call to discuss two
`proposed modifications to the briefing in Cases IPR2017-01407 and
`IPR2017-01408. Specifically, Petitioner seeks (1) authorization to expand
`the page limits for its oppositions to Patent Owner’s motions to amend by an
`additional ten pages, and (2) authorization to file sur-replies regarding Patent
`Owner’s motions to amend. According to the email, the parties have agreed
`to the expansion of the page limits for the oppositions but disagree as to
`whether sur-replies are warranted. The panel does not believe a conference
`call is needed at this time. Petitioner’s unopposed request to expand the
`page limits for its oppositions to the motions to amend is granted.
`Considering the current state of the briefing on Patent Owner’s motion to
`amend, Petitioner’s request for authorization to file sur-replies appears to be
`premature. If Petitioner continues to believe sur-replies are warranted after
`Patent Owner files its reply briefs concerning the motions to amend,
`Petitioner should renew its request for authorization at that time.
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the page limit for Petitioner’s oppositions to Patent
`Owner’s Motions to Amend in Cases IPR2017-01407 and IPR2017-01408 is
`extended by ten pages for each opposition; and
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01363 (Patent 9,403,047 B2)
`IPR2017-01407 (Patent 9,616,276 B2)
`IPR2017-01408 (Patent 9,616,276 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to
`file sur-replies concerning Patent Owner’s Motions to Amend in Cases
`IPR2017-01407 and IPR2017-01408 is denied without prejudice.
`
`PETITIONER:
`Ryan McBrayer
`Amy E. Simpson
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`rmcbrayer@perkinscoie.com
`asimpson@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Gadd
`Mark Ford
`Adam Smoot
`MASCHOFF BRENNAN
`jgadd@mabr.com
`mford@mabr.com
`asmoot@mabr.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
