From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Date:
`
`Bajaj, Raghav
`Trials
`andrea.pacelli@us.kwm.com; Wizenfeld, Charles (US); DeVincenzo, Michael (US); Andrew Baluch;
`smith@smithbaluch.com; greywitt@smithbaluch.com; McCombs, David L.
`IPR2021-00483, IPR2021-00484, IPR2021-00485 - Petitioner"s Request for Authorization to File Motion to Submit
`Supplemental Information
`Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:37:49 PM
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`Dear Board,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests authorization from the Board to file a motion to submit
`supplemental information pursuant to 37 CFR 42.123(a) in each of IPR2021-00483, IPR2021-00484,
`and IPR2021-00485.
`
`This request is being timely made on October 6, 2021, within one month of the date trial was
`instituted (see 37 CFR 42.123(a)(1)):
`In IPR2021-00483, trial was instituted on September 7, 2021.
`In IPR2021-00484 and IPR2021-00485, trial was instituted on September 14, 2021.
`
`
`In IPR2021-00483, Petitioner intends to submit as supplemental information a declaration from Dr.
`Sylvia Hall-Ellis in support of the printed publication status of Ellsworth (Exhibit 1026), which is cited
`in the grounds challenging claims 24-26. Thus, the supplemental information is relevant to a claim
`upon which trial was instituted. See 37 CFR 42.123(a)(2).
`
`In IPR2021-00484 and IPR2021-00485, Petitioner intends to submit as supplemental information a
`declaration from David Crocker in support of the printed publication status of RFC 1635, which is
`cited in both petitions’ instituted grounds. Thus, the supplemental information is relevant to a claim
`upon which trial was instituted. See 37 CFR 42.123(a)(2).
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have conferred, and certify that a telephone meet-and-confer has
`occurred.
`
`Patent Owner’s position is as follows: “Patent Owner does not object in principle to Petitioner’s
`request, on the condition that the declarations address the printed publication issue rather than
`attempt to cure evidentiary objections.” Petitioner believes Patent Owner can address this issue in
`opposition to Petitioner’s motion or in Patent Owner’s motion to exclude evidence (if any).
`
`The parties are available for a telephone conference with the panel on October 7, 8, and 12.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Raghav Bajaj
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`

`

`
`
`Raghav Bajaj
`Partner
`raghav.bajaj@haynesboone.com
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`600 Congress Avenue
`Suite 1300
`Austin, TX 78701-3285
`
`(t) +1 512.867.8520
`(f) +1 512.867.8603
`(m) +1 202.683.7810
`
`vCard | Bio | Website
`
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is confidential,
`may be privileged and should be read or retained only by the intended
`recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please
`immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system.
`
`