`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: November 12, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SWEEGEN, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PURECIRCLE SDN BHD AND PURECIRCLE USA INC.,
`Patent Owners.
`____________
`
`PGR2020-00070
`Patent 10,485,257 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JAMIE T. WISZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WISZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00070
`Patent 10,485,257 B2
`
`
`On October 30, 2020, Petitioner requested a conference call seeking
`permission to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Paper
`10 (“Preliminary Response”). More specifically, Petitioner requested
`authorization to file a Reply addressing Patent Owner’s arguments for denial
`of institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) raised at pages 1–2 and 61–63 of the
`Preliminary Response.
`A conference between the Board (Judges Wisz, Mitchell, and
`Chagnon) and the parties’ counsel took place on November 12, 2020. After
`considering the parties’ contentions made during the conference, we
`concluded that good cause exists for Petitioner’s request, and we authorize
`the filing of a Reply to the Preliminary Response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“A
`petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in
`accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a
`showing of good cause.”).
`We are persuaded Petitioner could not have foreseen Patent Owner’s
`particular arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), and thus, Petitioner
`should be given an opportunity to respond to those arguments now.
`Moreover, having a meaningful response from Petitioner on those arguments
`will help the Board determine whether denial of the Petition under § 325(d)
`is (or is not) appropriate. In particular, the Board would benefit from, inter
`alia, briefing on the factors set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El
`Elektromedizinische Gerate Gmbh, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB
`Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) and Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun
`Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017)
`(precedential).
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00070
`Patent 10,485,257 B2
`
`
`
`In consideration of the forgoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner may file a five page Reply brief,
`addressing only discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), no later than
`November 23, 2020;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file a five page
`Sur-Reply no later than December 4, 2020 in response to Petitioner’s Reply;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other briefing is authorized.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00070
`Patent 10,485,257 B2
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jason H. Conway
`Elizabeth E. Millard
`John R. Schroeder
`STINSON LLP
`jason.conway@stinson.com
`elizabeth.millard@stinson.com
`john.schroeder@stinson.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNERS:
`
`Stuart E. Pollack
`Jeffrey R. Cole
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`stuart.pollack@us.dlapiper.com
`jeff.cole@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`