`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: May 30, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00019 (Patent 5,191,573)
`Case CBM2013-00020 (Patent 5,191,573)
`Case CBM2013-00021 (Patent 5,966,440)
`Case CBM2013-00023 (Patent 5,966,440)1
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in the four cases. We
`therefore exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Cases CBM2013-00019 and CBM2013-00020 (Patent 5,191,573)
`Cases CBM2013-00021 and CBM2013-00023 (Patent 5,966,440)
`
`
`
`
`A conference call was held on May 30, 2013 between respective
`counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and Judges Tierney, Arbes, and
`Braden. Petitioner requested the conference call to seek authorization to file
`a motion to expedite the four instant proceedings by reducing the time
`period for Patent Owner to file preliminary responses from three months to
`two months. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(c)(1), 42.207(b). According to
`Petitioner, Patent Owner should be able to respond quickly to the issues
`presented in the petitions because only seven claims of two patents are being
`challenged, the patents previously were subject to ex parte reexamination
`and litigated in two cases, and Patent Owner currently is asserting the
`patents in litigation against Petitioner. Petitioner further represented that
`while the specific prior art references now being asserted were not at issue in
`the reexaminations, a related system was considered.
`Patent Owner opposed Petitioner’s request, arguing that the four
`petitions and accompanying documents amount to over 10,000 pages that
`need to be reviewed for Patent Owner to be able to respond. Patent Owner
`also indicated that there is an ongoing dispute between the parties as to
`whether the attorneys representing Patent Owner in the pending litigation
`can also participate in the instant proceedings due to a protective order in the
`litigation, and as a result the two attorneys currently representing Patent
`Owner do not have background knowledge from the litigations and
`reexaminations.
`Given the voluminous record of over 10,000 pages of documents, as
`well as the dispute over what attorneys may represent Patent Owner, at this
`time we will not exercise our discretion to change Patent Owner’s time
`period for filing preliminary responses. The parties, however, are
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases CBM2013-00019 and CBM2013-00020 (Patent 5,191,573)
`Cases CBM2013-00021 and CBM2013-00023 (Patent 5,966,440)
`
`encouraged to reach agreement as to Patent Owner’s representation and the
`scheduling of preliminary responses to ensure that the instant proceedings
`proceed in a timely manner. Should the parties reach an agreement whereby
`Patent Owner will file preliminary responses earlier than the three month
`deadline provided by rule, the parties shall notify the Board.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that no motion is authorized and the time period for
`Patent Owner to file preliminary responses, should it choose to do so, is not
`changed.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases CBM2013-00019 and CBM2013-00020 (Patent 5,191,573)
`Cases CBM2013-00021 and CBM2013-00023 (Patent 5,966,440)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, MA 02199-3600
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David R. Marsh
`Kristan L. Lansbery
`Arnold & Porter LLP
`555 12th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`david.marsh@aporter.com
`kristan.lansbery@aporter.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
