`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: February 4, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIOLOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01350
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`On Motion to Consolidate Schedules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`Introduction
`On July 22, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition to institute inter
`partes review of claims 3 and 6–9 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,016,676 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’676 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). Concurrent with filing of the Petition, Petitioner filed a
`“Motion for Consolidation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a).” Paper 3 (hereinafter “Motion”). Within the
`Motion, Petitioner explains its requested relief as follows: “Petitioner
`Marvell Semiconductor Inc. (‘Marvell’ respectfully requests
`consolidation of schedules of this IPR (‘Marvell IPR’) with the inter
`partes reviews concerning the same patent in Microsoft Corporation
`v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Case Nos. IPR2019-01116 and IPR2019-01125
`(collectively, the ‘Microsoft IPRs’).” Id. at 1.
`Petitioner seeks only synchronization of the trial schedule, if
`review is instituted here, with the trial schedules of IPR2019-01116
`and IPR2019-1125, rather than actual consolidation of proceedings in
`terms of substantive issues, filings, and/or arguments, or discovery.
`That is confirmed through the following representation in the Motion:
`“Marvell emphasizes that it is only requesting consolidation for the
`purposes of synchronizing the schedules of the Marvell IPR with the
`Microsoft IPRs. Marvell is not requesting joint briefing or
`depositions in conjunction with the Microsoft IPRs.” Id. at 2.
`Marvell indicates that it seeks to avoid the final written
`decisions in the Microsoft IPRs to issue first, prior to issuance of any
`final written decision in the proceeding. Id. at 1–2. Marvell explains
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`that that would eliminate a potential estoppel argument under
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) by Patent Owner who may assert, incorrectly,
`that Petitioner is a real party in interest or privy in the Microsoft IPRs.
`Id.
`
`Discussion
`On November 27, 2019, we declined institution of inter partes
`
`review in IPR2019-01125. IPR2019-01125, Paper 8. There is no
`ongoing trial in IPR2019-01125. In IPR2019-01116, we instituted
`inter partes review on December 4, 2019. IPR2019-01116, Paper 9.
`
`Petitioner does not explain how, with a two month gap in the
`relative dates of institution of trial between this proceeding and
`IPR2019-01116, any trial schedule for this proceeding reasonably can
`be synchronized with the ongoing trial schedule in IPR2019-01116.
`We decline to give Patent Owner less than one month for filing the
`Patent Owner Response in this proceeding. Also, depriving the Patent
`Owner of a potential argument, although a meritless argument from
`the perspective of Petitioner, is not a proper basis for setting the trial
`schedule in a certain way. The Patent Owner should not be deprived
`of an opportunity to make an argument by adjusting the schedule for
`that purpose.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Motion is denied.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01350
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Harper Batts
`Jeffrey Liang
`Chris Ponder
`Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
`hbatts@sheppardmullin.com
`cponder@sheppardmullin.com
`jliang@sheppardmullin.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`Etheridge Law Group
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.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
