Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 18
`
`Entered: January 23, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and JENNIFER S.
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 18
`
`Entered: January 23, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and JENNIFER S.
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`A. DUE DATES
`
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution of the
`
`proceeding. The parties may stipulate different dates for DUE DATES 1 through 3
`
`(earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 4). A notice of the stipulation,
`
`specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly filed. The parties
`
`may not stipulate an extension of DUE DATES 4-7.
`
`In stipulating different times, the parties should consider the effect of the
`
`stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)), to supplement
`
`evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross examination (37 C.F.R.
`
`42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the evidence and cross examination
`
`testimony (see section B, below).
`
`
`
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48772 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix D),
`
`apply to this proceeding. The Board may impose an appropriate sanction for failure
`
`to adhere to the Testimony Guidelines. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For example, reasonable
`
`expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who
`
`impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`1. DUE DATE 1
`
`The patent owner may file—
`
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE
`
`DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner must
`
`arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board.
`
`2. DUE DATE 2
`
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to
`
`the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`
`3. DUE DATE 3
`
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to patent
`
`owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`4. DUE DATE 4
`
`a. The petitioner must file any motion for an observation on the cross examination
`
`testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE DATE 4.
`
`b. Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)) and
`
`any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`5. DUE DATE 5
`
`a. The patent owner must file any reply to a petitioner observation on cross
`
`examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`
`b. Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude by DUE DATE 5.
`
`6. DUE DATE 6
`
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude by DUE DATE 6.
`
`7. DUE DATE 7
`
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE DATE 7.
`
`B. CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`
`1. Cross examination begins after any supplemental evidence is due (37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.53(d)(2)).
`
`2. Cross examination ends no later than a week before the filing date for any paper
`
`in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to be used. Id.
`
`C. MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`A motion for observation on cross examination provides the petitioner with a
`
`mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross examination testimony
`
`of a reply witness, since no further substantive paper is permitted after the reply.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`observation must be a concise statement of the relevance of the precisely identified
`
`testimony to a precisely identified argument or portion of an exhibit. Each
`
`observation should not exceed a single, short paragraph. The patent owner may
`
`respond to the observation. Any response must be equally concise and specific.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1
`Patent owner post-institution response to the petition
`Patent owner post-institution motion to amend patent
`
`March 18, 2013
`
`May 20, 2013
`
`June 18, 2013
`
`July 9, 2013
`
`July 23, 2013
`
`July 30, 2013
`
`August 13, 2013
`
`DUE DATE 2
`Petitioner reply to patent owner response
`Petitioner opposition to patent owner amendment
`
`DUE DATE 3
`Patent owner reply to petitioner opposition
`
`DUE DATE 4
`Petitioner motion for observation regarding cross
`examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5
`Patent owner response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7
`Oral argument
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`For Patent Owner
`
`John Donohue
`Woodcock Washburn, LLP
`donohue@woodcock.com
`
`For Petitioner
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
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
