`To:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Braden, Georgianna
`Braden, Georgianna
`IPR2020-00499, -00502, -00504, and -00505: Petitioner Request for Leave to File Reply
`Thursday, July 30, 2020 3:23:24 PM
`
`From: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:12 PM
`To: Mizzo, F. Christopher <chris.mizzo@kirkland.com>; Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: rwmorris@eckertseamans.com; mike@shamimessinger.com; #Samsung_Dynamics_IPR
`<Samsung_Dynamics_IPR@kirkland.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2020-00499, -00502, -00504, and -00505: Petitioner Request for Leave to File Reply
`
`Counsel,
`
`Petitioner’s unopposed request to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is granted.
`Additionally, Patent Owner’s unopposed request to file a Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply is granted. Each
`filing is limited to the issue of discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and the six factors set forth in
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Each filing shall be
`no more than ten pages. The Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is due on or
`before June 2, 2020. Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply is due 5 business days after
`Petitioner’s filing. No further briefing is authorized. A conference call is not deemed necessary.
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`(571)272-7822
`
`
`
`From: Mizzo, F. Christopher <chris.mizzo@kirkland.com>
`Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 2:08 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: rwmorris@eckertseamans.com; mike@shamimessinger.com; #Samsung_Dynamics_IPR
`<Samsung_Dynamics_IPR@kirkland.com>
`Subject: IPR2020-00499, -00502, -00504, and -00505: Petitioner Request for Leave to File Reply
`
`Trials -
`
`Petitioner requests leave to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2020-00499,
`-00502, -00504, and -00505. Petitioner seeks leave to file a reply to respond to Patent Owner’s
`arguments regarding the Board’s discretion under §314(a), including its reliance on the Apple v.
`Fintiv decision that issued after the petitions in the above-referenced IPRs were filed.
`
`Petitioner consulted with counsel for Patent Owner regarding this request. Patent Owner does not
`oppose Petitioner’s request, provided Patent Owner is given leave to file a sur-reply to Petitioner’s
`Reply. Petitioner does not oppose Patent Owner’s request.
`
`
`
`
`Should the Board believe a call is necessary to discuss Petitioner’s request, the parties are generally
`available May 26-29, 2020, for a conference call.
`
`Thank you,
`Chris Mizzo
`
`F. Christopher Mizzo, P.C.
`-------------------------------------------------------
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`T +1-202-389-5147 F +1-202-389-5200
`-------------------------------------------------------
`chris.mizzo@kirkland.com
`
`
`The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside
`information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis
`International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and
`may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email or by email
`to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
`
`
`
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
