e.Digital

...................................................................

sman why did you put them up?

==============================================================

Anyway, I'll submit for amusement...U.S.C vs. C.F.R

Accordingly, on that basis, we exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to waive the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) and deny Patent Owner’s motion.

Well that's just dandy...we'll forget about that...lol

sman, petitioner is relying on 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5):

PTAB comment: "Petitioner’s effective service of the Petition and supporting documents on the Patent Owner through its litigation counsel, however, is undisputed. Because Petitioner has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5); because counsel participating in this proceeding on behalf of Patent Owner actually received the Petition prior to the expiration of the one-year bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b);"

With that, Petitioner/PTAB feel that by noticing Handal it has met the statute requirements 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5).

Handal was not a proper authority to be recognized for service.

IPR ..."MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ANTON NASRI HANDALUNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.10" "Dated: January 21, 2015"

From the IPR..."Date: December 31, 2014"...

A courtesy copy was also served by email on the attorney of record for the plaintiff in related matters e.Digital Corp. v. Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02907 (S.D. Cal.); e.Digital Corp. v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02944 (S.D. Cal.); e.Digital Corp. v. Other World Computing, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02915 (S.D. Cal.); and e.Digital Corp. v. Mushkin, Inc., No. 3:13-cv- 02914 (S.D. Cal.):
Anthony Handal
Handal & Associates
750 B Street
Suite 2510
San Diego, CA 92101
anh@handal-law.com
/s/ Matthew A. Ferry
Matthew A. Ferry

Handal was not IPR involved, as the above dates indicate, to be served in any capacity other than in " courtesy copy" fashion.

With that, If e.Digital was litigating its own patent process, Handal would still not be a proper authority to be notice other than in "courtesy copy" fashion.

I say the petitioner has not met the statute of the following condition ...."Our governing statute regarding service provides that a petition for inter partes review may be considered only if “the petitioner provides copies of any of the documents required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the patent owner or, if applicable,the designated representative of the patent owner.”

Service issues aside... I say "the designated representative" has a definitive obligation in the statute regarding prosecution matters as a hired gun....with that, "the patent owner" also has a definitive obligation in the statute regarding prosecution matters.

Yes it reads the “the petitioner provides copies of any of the documents required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the patent owner

However, that condition would only be met if "the" owner is involved in prosecution of its patent directly, where it would be noticed as "the" owner.

If e.Digial was managing its own application and prosecution matters Micron would be proper, if it notified "the" ownerdirectly...

However, that is not the case. Micron gave a " courtesy copy" to Handal and that is sufficient for the PTAB. Handal is not "the"Owner and, Handal was not a "representative" in any way shape or form when Micron submitted a " courtesy copy" 12-31-2014 to Handal.

Why have statutes if they are not followed?

The letter of the law...Yeah right ,

FWIW

doni