`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: June 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ALARM.COMINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`VIVINT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2015-01995, IPR2015-01997, IPR2015-02003,
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-001 16, IPR2016-00129,
`IPR2016-00155, IPR2016-00161, and IPR2016-00173
`(Patents 6,147,601, 6,462,654 B1, 6,535,123 B2, and 6,717,513 B1)'
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMESB. ARPIN,and
`CHARLESJ. BOUDREAU,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 CFR. § 42.5
`
`On January 28, 2016, we issued a set of Orders staying certain
`
`Requests for Certificates of Correction filed by Patent Ownerwith respectto
`
`! This Order addresses an issue pertaining to each ofthe nine identified
`cases. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one Orderto befiled in
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01995, IPR2015-01997, IPR2015-02003,
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-00116, IPR2016-00129,
`IPR2016-00155, IPR2016-00161, and IPR2016-00173
`(Patents 6,147,601, 6,462,654 B1, 6,535,123 B2, and 6,717,513 B1)
`
`USS.Patent Nos. 6,147,601, 6,462,654 BI, 6,535,123 B2, and 6,717,513 B1,
`pending our decisions oninstitution in each of the above-identified cases.’
`In a telephone conference held on May 25, 2016, we notified the
`parties? of ourintentiontolift the stay of the Requests for Certificates of
`Correction, in view of the fact that decisions on institution have now been.
`
`entered in each identified case.*
`
`In the telephone conference, Petitionerinitially objected to ourlifting
`ofthe stay, citing its intention to request partial rehearing of our Decision on
`
`each case. Theparties are not authorized to use this style heading for any |
`subsequent papers.
`* Case IPR2015-01995 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 10), Case IPR2015-
`01997 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 10), Case IPR2015-02003 (PTAB Jan.
`28, 2016) (Paper 10), Case IPR2015-02004 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper
`10), Case IPR2016-00116 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 9), Case IPR2016-
`00129 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper 9), Case IPR2016-00155 (PTAB Jan.
`28, 2016) (Paper 9), Case IPR2016-00161 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper9),
`and Case IPR2016-00173 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) (Paper9) (collectively, “the
`Stay Orders”).
`3 Petitioner was represented in the telephone conference by William Mandir,
`Brian Shelton, and Teena-Ann Sankoorikal; and Patent Owner was
`represented by Robert Sterne, Jason Eisenberg, and Joseph Mutschelknaus.
`4 Case IPR2015-01995 (PTAB Apr. 4, 2016) (Paper 14), Case IPR2015-
`01997 (PTAB Apr.7, 2016) (Paper 14), Case IPR2015-02003 (PTAB Mar.
`31, 2016) (Paper 15), Case IPR2015-02004 (PTAB Mar. 31, 2016) (Paper
`14), Case IPR2016-00116 (PTAB May4, 2016) (Paper 14), Case IPR2016-
`00129 (PTAB May3, 2016) (Paper 13), Case IPR2016-00155 (PTAB Apr.
`28, 2016) (Paper 14), Case IPR2016-00161 (PTAB May 12, 2016) (Paper
`16), and Case IPR2016-00173 (PTAB May 10, 2016) (Paper 14).
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01995, IPR2015-01997, IPR2015-02003,
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-00116, IPR2016-00129,
`IPR2016-00155, IPR2016-00161, and IPR2016-00173
`(Patents 6,147,601, 6,462,654 B1, 6,535,123 B2, and 6,717,513B1)
`
`Institution that only granted review based on a subsetofthe challenged
`
`claims in Case IPR2016-00161, as well as its intention to file additional
`
`petitions for inter partes review ofcertain claims subject to Patent Owner’s
`Requests for Certificates of Correction. Petitioner also repeated its previous
`position that certain changes sought in Patent Owner’s Requests for
`
`Certificates of Correction are not properly characterized as “corrections”
`within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 255.° Patent Ownerindicated that it does
`
`not opposelifting of the stay of its Requests for Certificates of Correction.
`With regardto Petitioner’s initial objections, Petitioner conceded,
`
`however,that its request for rehearing would not turn on whetheror not the
`requested correctionsare entered,° as well as that it could address the
`corrected claim languagein any additionalpetitions filed. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner withdrewits initial objection. Further, we explained that we are
`not persuaded that Petitioner’s argument under § 255 warrants further
`maintenanceofthe stay. The Certificate of Corrections Branch ofthe Office
`
`> See Case IPR2015-01995 (Paper 12, 1-4), Case IPR2015-02003 (Paper 12,
`1-3), Case IPR2015-02004 (Paper 12, 2-5), Case IPR2016-00116 (Paper 11,
`1-4), Case IPR2016-00161 (Paper 11, 1-3), and Case IPR2016-00173
`(Paper 11, 1-4).
`6 Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing has sincee been filed as Paper 18 in Case
`
`IPR2016-00161.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01995, IPR2015-01997, IPR2015-02003,
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-00116, IPR2016-00129,
`IPR2016-00155, IPR2016-00161, and IPR2016-00173
`(Patents 6,147,601, 6,462,654 B1, 6,535,123 B2, and 6,717,513 B1)
`
`is equipped to determine the propriety of Patent Owner’s Requests for
`
`Certificates of Correction, and we defer to its determination.
`
`Accordingly,it is .
`
`ORDEREDthatthe stay of Patent Owner’s Requests for Certificates
`
`of Correction with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,147,601, 6,462,654 B1,
`
`6,535,123 B2, and 6,717,513 B1, imposed by our Stay Orders dated January
`
`28, 2016, herebyis lifted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat said Requests are returned to the
`
`jurisdiction of the Certificate of Corrections Branch of the Office for
`
`processing in due course.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01995, IPR2015-01997, IPR2015-02003,
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-00116, IPR2016-00129,
`IPR2016-00155, IPR2016-00161, and IPR2016-00173
`(Patents 6,147,601, 6,462,654 B1, 6,535,123 B2, and 6,717,513 B1)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`Brian K. Shelton
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`
`Roger G. Brooks
`Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal
`CRAVATIL SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`rgbrooks@cravath.com
`tsankoor@cravath.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Joseph Mutschelknaus
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`jmutsche-PTAB@skef.com
`
`