`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`Entered: February 22, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2012-00002 (JL)
`Patent 6,064,970
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On February 21, 2013, a telephone conference call was held between
`
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Chang, and Zecher. The
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`parties expressed a desire to have this proceeding joined under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b) with CBM2012-00004, in the interest of
`
`efficiency. For instance, if oral argument can be held at the same time, if the
`
`same witness can be cross-examined once rather than twice, and if the same
`
`prior art can be discussed once, not twice, that would lead to better
`
`efficiency. Also, if the two proceedings result in final decisions that are not
`
`rendered at the same time, there may be unintended effects on the second
`
`proceeding to finish.
`
`A discussion ensued and it became apparent that most items of
`
`concern to the parties are not at issue. The scheduling orders in both cases
`
`coincide with each other and both cases have been scheduled for oral
`
`argument on the same day. Counsel for the parties were informed that there
`
`will be a single oral argument held for both cases and that the Board expects
`
`to enter judgment in both cases on the same day. Counsel for the parties
`
`further agreed to coordinate with each other so that cross examination of the
`
`same witness can be conducted just once with the transcript thereof being
`
`useable for both cases.
`
`In light of that discussion, each counsel agreed that there is no
`
`pressing need to join the two proceedings. The Board prefers to proceed
`
`without making any joinder or consolidation at this time, given the focus and
`
`clarity afforded by two smaller proceedings with different prior art issues.
`
`The parties indicated no objection to non-joinder.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the parties’ request to join this proceeding under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b) with CBM2012-00004 is
`
`considered withdrawn; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may renew the request for
`
`joinder, if still so desired at a time subsequent to the time for oral argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Ropes & Gray
`Email: steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John V. Biernacki
`Jones Day
`Email: jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
