`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 35
`
`
` Entered: February 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`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.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On February 21, 2013, the following individuals participated in a
`
`conference call:
`
`(1) Mr. Robert Yoches, Mr. Aaron Capron, and Mr. Darrel Karl,
`
`counsel for CRS;
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`
`
`(2) Mr. John Donohue, Mr. John McGlynn, and Mr. Scott Tewes,
`
`counsel for Frontline; and
`
`(3) Sally Medley and Jennifer Bisk, Administrative Patent Judges.1
`
`The purpose of the conference call was to discuss any proposed
`
`motion to amend that Frontline intends to file. Counsel for Frontline
`
`suggested postponing Due Date 1 (the time for filing any proposed motion to
`
`amend) until mid-October 2013, since there is a likelihood that by then, a
`
`decision in the CLS Bank case2 will be made. The request is denied. Based
`
`on the circumstances and facts presented, counsel for Frontline did not
`
`provide a good cause showing for extending the Scheduling Order Due
`
`Date 1 by nearly eight months. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(2).
`
`Counsel for Frontline represented that if the current schedule is
`
`followed, Frontline did not presently intend to file a motion to amend its
`
`claims by Due Date 1, currently scheduled for March 18, 2013. If between
`
`now and March 18, 2013, Frontline determines that it will file a motion to
`
`amend, counsel for Frontline should arrange a conference call with opposing
`
`counsel and the Board to discuss the proposed motion to amend.
`
`Counsel for Frontline renewed Frontline’s request to file a motion to
`
`dismiss as set forth on page 5 of its proposed motions list. Paper 27.
`
`Counsel for Frontline explained that the motion would be duplicative of
`
`arguments it made in its preliminary response and that the only reason to file
`
`the motion would be to preserve the argument made in the preliminary
`
`response for appeal. Upon consideration, the motion is not authorized. As
`
`
`1 A court reporter was also present.
`2 See CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir 2012),
`vacated, reh’g, en banc, granted, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20906 (Fed. Cir.
`Oct. 9, 2012). Oral argument was held on February 8, 2013.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`
`counsel for Frontline represented, Frontline’s motion to dismiss would be an
`
`exact duplicate of some of the arguments made in Frontline’s preliminary
`
`response. Those arguments were considered. Frontline filed a request for
`
`rehearing and the rehearing request was considered. As such, counsel for
`
`Frontline did not present a persuasive reason to consider an additional,
`
`separate motion (from its already authorized patent owner post-institution
`
`response). Based on the facts of this case, consideration of the proposed
`
`motion to dismiss would not assist in resolving this proceeding in a just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive manner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). For all of the reasons
`
`stated above,
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Frontline’s request for an extension of Due Date 1 to
`
`mid-October 2013 is DENIED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Frontline’s request to file a motion to
`
`dismiss as set forth on page 5 of Paper 27 is DENIED; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that if Frontline intends to file a motion to
`
`amend by DUE DATE 1, scheduled for March 18, 2013, then Frontline shall
`
`arrange a conference call with opposing counsel and the Board to discuss the
`
`proposed motion to amend.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John P. Donohue, Jr.
`John E. McGlynn
`Woodcock Washburn
`Donohue@woodcock.com
`mcglynn@woodocock.com
`
`4
`
`