throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 6
` Date: May 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2020-00585, IPR2020-00586, IPR2020-00587,
`IPR2020-00590, IPR2020-00591, and IPR2020-005921
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Reply to Preliminary Response And Sur-reply
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.20
`
`
`1 The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,694,683 B2, 9,270,790 B2,
`9,591,104 B2, 10,027,780 B2, 10,033,839 B2, and 10,225,378 B2. The
`parties may not use this caption for any subsequent papers without prior
`Board authorization.
`2 This is not an order from an expanded panel of the Board. Administrative
`Patent Judges of each of the three-member panels from all the respective
`proceedings are listed.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00585 (Patent 8,694,683 B2)
`IPR2020-00586 (Patent 9,270,790 B2)
`IPR2020-00587 (Patent 9,591,104 B2)
`IPR2020-00590 (Patent 10,027,780 B2)
`IPR2020-00591 (Patent 10,033,839 B2)
`IPR2020-00592 (Patent 10,225,378 B2)
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`The Petitions and Preliminary Responses filed in these cases
`addressed arguments relating to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See, e.g., IPR2020-
`00585, Paper 1, 13–15; IPR2020-00585, Paper 6, 8–19. For instance, in its
`Preliminary Responses, Implicit, LLC, (“Patent Owner”) asserted that we
`should exercise our discretion and deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`See, e.g., IPR2020-00585, Paper 6, 8–19. Juniper Networks, Inc.
`(“Petitioner”) appeared to anticipate those arguments and, therefore.
`addressed § 325(d) in its Petitions. See, e.g., IPR2020-00585, Paper 1, 13–
`15.
`
`In an email of May 19, 2020, Petitioner requested leave to file a reply
`of no more than seven pages to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to
`address further the § 325(d) issues. We held a call with the parties on May
`21, 2020 to consider Petitioner’s request. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s
`request as unnecessary because the Petitions sufficiently addressed the
`§ 325(d) issue. However, Patent Owner requests authorization to file a sur-
`reply of the same length in each of the proceedings if Petitioner’s request is
`granted, with briefing limited to five pages for both Petitioner and Patent
`Owner.
`On March 24, 2020, the Board designated Advanced Bionics, LLC v.
`MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469 (PTAB Feb.
`13, 2020) (Paper 6) as precedential. Because Advanced Bionics changed the
`analytical framework applied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), and the Petitions
`were filed prior to the case being designated as precedential, we determine
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00585 (Patent 8,694,683 B2)
`IPR2020-00586 (Patent 9,270,790 B2)
`IPR2020-00587 (Patent 9,591,104 B2)
`IPR2020-00590 (Patent 10,027,780 B2)
`IPR2020-00591 (Patent 10,033,839 B2)
`IPR2020-00592 (Patent 10,225,378 B2)
`
`that permitting the parties to submit additional briefing on this matter would
`be in the interests of justice and would also be helpful to the panel. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.20(d). In light of the similarities of the patents and issues
`among these cases, Petitioner and Patent Owner are instructed to file the
`same paper in all proceedings, i.e., IPR2020-00585, -586, -587, -590, -591,
`and -592 and are required to use this Order’s case caption format.
`During the call, the parties also indicated that a motion to transfer was
`granted in the district court proceeding identified in the parties’ mandatory
`notices. The parties are reminded of their obligations to file updated
`mandatory notices identifying any judicial or administrative matter that
`would affect, or be affected by, a decision in the instant proceedings. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(2). The parties also are reminded of their obligation to file
`motions for admission pro hac vice for backup counsel that are not
`registered practitioners. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c).
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00585 (Patent 8,694,683 B2)
`IPR2020-00586 (Patent 9,270,790 B2)
`IPR2020-00587 (Patent 9,591,104 B2)
`IPR2020-00590 (Patent 10,027,780 B2)
`IPR2020-00591 (Patent 10,033,839 B2)
`IPR2020-00592 (Patent 10,225,378 B2)
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file in each of these
`
`proceedings, within 14 days of this Order, a Reply Brief of no more than
`seven pages limited to addressing 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) issues raised by the
`Preliminary Response and consistent with the foregoing instructions; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within 14 days of Petitioner’s Reply
`Brief, Patent Owner may file, in each of these proceedings, a Sur-reply Brief
`of no more than seven pages limited to arguments raised in Petitioner’s
`Reply Brief and consistent with the foregoing instructions.
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00585 (Patent 8,694,683 B2)
`IPR2020-00586 (Patent 9,270,790 B2)
`IPR2020-00587 (Patent 9,591,104 B2)
`IPR2020-00590 (Patent 10,027,780 B2)
`IPR2020-00591 (Patent 10,033,839 B2)
`IPR2020-00592 (Patent 10,225,378 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`David McPhie
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`jlindsay@irell.com
`dmcphie@irell.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christian Hurt
`DAVIS FIRM, PC
`churt@davisfirm.com
`
`5
`
`

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