From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Trials
`Jarratt, Scott; Trials
`Scott Jarratt IPR; Calmann Clements IPR; Jon Bowser IPR; Paul Margulies (pmargulies@tesla.com); Daniel H.
`Golub; Brandon R. Theiss; Ryan O"Donnell; Robert D. Leonard; rrigby@intven.com
`RE: IPR2025-00218
`Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:13:45 PM
`
`EXTERNAL: Sent from outside Haynes and
`Boone, LLP
`
`Counsel,
`               
`Petitioner Tesla, Inc. requests leave to file a seven page Preliminary Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2025-00218 to address the following
`issues: (1) Fintiv; (2) claim construction of “each of the plurality of bits indicates a
`respective time interval”; and (3) claim construction of “broadcast information”. 
`Petitioner’s request is granted.  Petitioner has until April 4, 2025 to file a
`Preliminary Reply of no more than 7 pages.  Patent Owner has until April 16,
`2025 to file a Preliminary Sur-reply of no more than 7 pages.  Petitioner is
`directed to submit this email as an exhibit to its Preliminary Reply to evidence
`authorization for the filing.
` 
`Regards,
` 
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Deputy Chief Clerk, Trials
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`(571) 272-5366
` 
` 
` 
`From: Jarratt, Scott <Scott.Jarratt@haynesboone.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 4:34 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Scott Jarratt IPR <Scott.Jarratt.IPR@haynesboone.com>; Calmann Clements IPR
`<Calmann.Clements.ipr@haynesboone.com>; Jon Bowser IPR <Jon.Bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com>;
`Paul Margulies (pmargulies@tesla.com) <pmargulies@tesla.com>; Daniel H. Golub
`<DGolub@vklaw.com>; Brandon R. Theiss <BTheiss@vklaw.com>; Ryan O'Donnell
`<RODonnell@vklaw.com>; Robert D. Leonard <RLeonard@vklaw.com>; rrigby@intven.com
`Subject: IPR2025-00218
` 
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`Dear Honorable Board,
`
`
`
`Ex.1017 / IPR2025-00218 / Page 1 of 3Ex.1017 / IPR2025-00218 / Page 1 of 3
`
`Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCTesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`

`

`Pursuant to 37 CFR 42.108(c), Petitioner Tesla, Inc. requests leave to file a Preliminary Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2025-00218 to address the following issues:
`
`
`1.  Fintiv: After the Petition was filed, the Office rescinded the Memorandum addressing
`discretionary denial. Petitioner cited to and relied upon the Memorandum in the Petition.
`(Ex.1013). Good cause therefore exists for a reply so that Petitioner can address the impact of
`this development, and also provide a stipulation.
`2.  Claim construction of “each of the plurality of bits indicates a respective time interval”:
`Petitioner could not have anticipated that Patent Owner would base its construction of this
`term on figures created by its expert (POPR, 11, 13) and statements of obviousness (POPR, 13
`(“the embodiment of FIG. 9 could be extended to a system where…”)) rather than the actual
`disclosure of the ’416 patent. Good cause therefore exists to allow Petitioner to address this
`construction and its applicability to the prior art.
`3.  Claim construction of “broadcast information”: Patent Owner alleges that Petitioner’s
`interpretation of “broadcast information” in the IPR is “diametrically opposed” to Petitioner’s
`construction in district court. Petitioner could not have anticipated Patent Owner would (i)
`ignore the actual words of Petitioner’s construction (not referenced in the POPR), and (ii)
`ignore that the Petition points to a “broadcast” channel in the prior art. Good cause therefore
`exists to allow Petitioner to show why its district court construction of “broadcast
`information” is not inconsistent with information in a “broadcast” channel (as mapped in the
`petition).
`
`
`Petitioner requests authorization for a seven-page reply to the POPR. Petitioner does not oppose
`granting Patent Owner a sur-reply of the same length. While Petitioner does not believe a
`conference call with the Board is necessary, counsel for Petitioner is generally available if the Board
`should choose to schedule a conference call.
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have conferred, and Patent Owner states the following:
`
`“Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request. Patent Owner is mindful of the Board’s rules
`forbidding parties from making arguments in emails to the Board. Patent Owner therefore requests
`that the Board convene a conference call during which Patent Owner may have an opportunity to
`present its position opposing Petitioner’s request. Counsel for Patent Owner is generally available
`for a conference call with the Board.”
`
`Thank you,
`Scott Jarratt
`Counsel for Petitioner
` 
` 
`
`Scott Jarratt
`Partner
`scott.jarratt@haynesboone.com
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`6000 Headquarters Dr.
`
`
`Ex.1017 / IPR2025-00218 / Page 2 of 3Ex.1017 / IPR2025-00218 / Page 2 of 3
`
`Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCTesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`

`

`Suite 200
`Plano, TX 75024
`
`(t) +1 972.739.8663
`(f) +1 972.692.9164
`
`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.
`
`
`Ex.1017 / IPR2025-00218 / Page 3 of 3Ex.1017 / IPR2025-00218 / Page 3 of 3
`
`Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCTesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`