Order Granting Motion to Expedite IPR2015-00580


Takeaway: The Board has the authority to expedite a preliminary response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(1).

In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request to expedite Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.  Also, the Board authorized Petitioner to submit a reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder in the event that Patent Owner elects to file an opposition to the Motion for Joinder. Continue reading

Granting Sua Sponte Order to Expedite Preliminary Response IPR2014-01144

Takeaway: The Board has discretion to expedite due dates, especially in cases where the expedited date is not unduly burdensome and will assist in creating a just, speedy, and efficient proceeding.

In its Order, the Board sua sponte ordered that the due date for Patent Owner’s preliminary response be expedited. In June 2014, an inter partes review was instituted in Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arendi S.A.R.L., Case IPR2014-00207.  Within a month, Petitioner filed its Petition along with a motion for joinder with IPR2014-00207.  Patent Owner filed an opposition to the motion for joinder and Petitioner filed a reply to the opposition. Continue reading

Denying Leave to File a Motion to Expedite Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response CBM2014-00117; CBM2014-00118

Takeaway: It is possible to expedite the due date for a patent owner’s preliminary response, but petitioner must show good cause.

In its Order, the Board denied Petitioner’s request to file a motion to modify the default due date for Patent Owner’s preliminary responses. Petitioner had filed petitions against the same two patents-at-issue as in these two proceedings on August 29, 2013. Petitioner wanted to expedite institution of the two instant proceedings that were filed on April 17, 2014 in order to join them with the proceedings filed on August 29, 2013. Continue reading

Denying Motion to File Supplemental Information CBM2013-00052, 53, 54

Takeaway: The Board considers whether additional information would lead to a just, speedy, and inexpensive proceeding when deciding a motion to submit supplemental information.

In its Order, the Board denied a request by the Petitioner to file a motion to submit supplemental information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(c). In particular, the Petitioner sought to submit challenges to dependent claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,958,024 in CBM2013-00053 and 7,908,304 in CBM2013-00054, which were not involved in either case. The Board held that allowing the additional challenges would not lead to a just, speedy, and inexpensive proceeding because it would require briefing by all parties as well as additional cross-examination of witnesses. Continue reading