Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[buylosellhi]

From the filing:

Patent Owner now argues that
[Petitioner] Bungie’s attempt to insert new evidence into the
record, by embedding evidence into the brief rather than
submitting exhibits, violates the Board's Order (Paper 48, p. 8),
stating that “With the exception of the filing of the above-
discussed ‘noncontroversial evidence,’ the evidentiary record
remains closed.”
Id. Patent Owner also impliedly argues that Petitioner violated our most
recent order where we denied the filing of disputed draft stipulations. Id.
Petitioner responds by stating that it did not submit to us the draft
version of the joint stipulations, and it only filed, as authorized, the finalized
uncontested joint stipulations (Ex. 1064, signed by counsel for both parties).
Petitioner embraces the distinction between argument and evidence,
asserting that the filed exhibit of joint stipulations contains facts while its
brief contains argument. Ex. 3001, 1. Petitioner further asserts that “Worlds
will have opportunity to address any argument in Bungie’s brief in their
IPR2015-01264 (Patent 7,945,856 B2)
IPR2015-01319 (Patent 8,082,501 B2)
IPR2015-01321 (Patent 8,145,998 B2)
4
Opposition Brief, and the Board is fully capable of attributing the
appropriate weight to argument advanced by either party.” Id.
Having considered the matter, we do not see a conference call as
being necessary or beneficial at this point. We are aware of the issues and
will determine at the time of the final decision whether Petitioner has
violated our orders, and particularly the order pertaining to the closed
evidentiary record2
. In reaching a final decision, we will be mindful of the
distinction between attorney-argument and evidence, and will give each the
weight it is due.