Subaru of America, Inc.v.Cruise Control Technologies LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 29, 201409310527 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, Petitioner, v. CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Patent Owner. _______________ Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 _______________ Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge. ORDER Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 2 On July 2, 2014, we issued a Decision to Institute inter partes review in this proceeding (Paper 13, hereafter “Decision to Institute”). On July 10, 2014, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Rehearing of the Decision to Institute (Paper 16, hereafter “Motion for Rehearing” or “Mot.”). The Motion for Rehearing contends our institution of inter partes review was an abuse of discretion because the Petition and the associated papers failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and § 42.10. See Mot. 1, 5. For the following reasons, we deny the Motion for Rehearing. The Motion Does Not Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) Our rules require that any request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and further identify “the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2013). The Motion for Rehearing fails to identify where the issues concerning 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and § 42.10 were previously addressed. These matters could have been raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 9), but were not. Patent Owner attempted to raise these matters in its Motion for Joinder (Paper 11). However, we denied that portion of the Motion for Joinder as an unauthorized motion. See Decision re Motion for Joinder (Paper 15), 2. The reference to “a motion” in Rule 42.71(d) applies to authorized motions, not unauthorized motions. Thus, the Motion for Rehearing is improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2013). Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 3 The Petition Complies with Rules 42.8 and 42.10 Nonetheless, we will also consider the merits of the Motion for Rehearing. The Motion requests reconsideration of our Decision to Institute because the Petition is defective for failing to identify counsel properly, and that alleged defect was never corrected. See Mot. 1, 5. In particular, our rules require that if a party is represented by counsel, then (1) that counsel must be identified, and (2) the party must designate a lead counsel and a back-up counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.10(a) (2013). Our rules further require “[a] power of attorney must be filed with the designation of counsel.” Id. § 42.10(b). We are not persuaded that those rules were violated. The Petition identifies John Caracappa as lead counsel for Petitioner in this proceeding, and five other practitioners (Tremayne Norris, William Mandir, Matthew Satchwell, Wab Kadaba, and Matthew Moore) as back-up counsel. See Pet. 3–4. We therefore conclude the Petition complies with Rules 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a). Patent Owner points out, correctly, that each one of the various Powers of Attorney for the seven companies bringing the Petition (Paper 4, collectively) is granted to only one or two of the six practitioners listed as counsel in the Petition. In others words, none of the Powers of Attorney filed in this proceeding is granted to all six practitioners. That fact, however, does not nullify the naming of the six practitioners as lead and back-up counsel in the Petition, having all the rights and responsibilities which apply to such roles. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that a company’s failure to name a specific practitioner in a Power of Attorney as Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 4 filed in the present proceeding means that practitioner lacks authority to represent the company in this proceeding. See Mot. 4–5. Instead, we accept as true the representation that the naming of lead and back-up counsel in the Petition implies: all named counsel are duly authorized to represent the Petitioner (i.e., all seven companies bringing the Petition) in this proceeding as circumstances require. Conclusion Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing is DENIED. Case IPR2014-00289 Patent 6,324,463 5 FOR PETITIONER: John M. Caracappa Tremayne M. Norris STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP jcaracap@steptoe.com tnorris@steptoe.com William H. Mandir SUGHRUE MION PLLC wmandir@sughrue.com Matthew D. Satchwell DLA PIPER LLP (US) matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com Wab Kadaba KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com Matthew J. Moore LATHAM & WATKINS LLP matthew.moore@lw.com FOR PATENT OWNER: John R. Kasha Kelly L. Kasha KASHA LAW LLC john.kasha@kashalaw.com kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
