Trials
`Mudd, Jason (SHB); Schafer, Mark D. (SHB); Friesen, Kyle E. (SHB); Argenti, Matthew; Rosato, Michael; Mills,
`Jad
`Trials
`RE: IPR2023-01186, -01187, -01188 (CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange, Inc.)
`Friday, November 24, 2023 8:57:20 AM
`
`From:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Counsel,
`
`Petitioner’s request is granted. In each proceeding, Petitioner is authorized to file a 7-page reply to the
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response in each IPR, to address Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition
`does not identify all real-parties-in-interest. Additionally, the parties should indicate whether or not the
`proceeding is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315. See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-
`00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential). The reply is due no later than December 1, 2023.
`Patent Owner is authorized to file a 7-page sur-reply in each IPR no later than December 8, 2023.
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`(571)272-7822
`
`From: Mudd, Jason (SHB) <jmudd@shb.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 10:17 AM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Schafer, Mark D. (SHB) <MSCHAFER@shb.com>; Friesen, Kyle E. (SHB) <KFRIESEN@shb.com>;
`Argenti, Matthew <margenti@wsgr.com>; Rosato, Michael <mrosato@wsgr.com>; Mills, Jad
`<jmills@wsgr.com>
`Subject: IPR2023-01186, -01187, -01188 (CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange, Inc.)
`
`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:
`
`We write on behalf of Petitioner, CSC ServiceWorks, Inc., in connection with the above-referenced
`IPRs to respectfully request leave to file a reply brief to the Patent Owner Preliminary Responses in
`each of the above IPRs, limited to the topic of addressing Patent Owner’s argument that the
`petitions did not identify all real-parties-in-interest. Petitioner respectfully requests 7 pages for each
`reply brief. Petitioner also requests that Patent Owner be allowed to file a sur-reply in each of the
`IPRs also limited to 7 pages. Petitioner submits that good cause for the replies exists because it was
`not foreseeable that Patent Owner would make some of the representations it did about Petitioner’s
`relationship with KioSoft/TechTrex with respect to the RPI issue and because Petitioner needs to
`provide Petitioner’s side to create a fulsome record.
`
`Exhibit 3001
`
`

`

`Petitioner has conferred with Patent Owner regarding this request, and Patent Owner opposes this
`request. However, should the Board grant Petitioner’s request, Patent Owner agrees that it should
`be given an equal number of pages to respond in a sur-reply.
`
`Should the panel wish to conduct a conference call with the parties to discuss this request, the
`parties can provide their availabilities at the panel’s request.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Jason R. Mudd
`Senior Counsel
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`
`816-559-2437 | jmudd@shb.com
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended for the
`person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
`Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
`recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
`Thank you.
`
`