`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: August 11, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRULIA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZILLOW, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-000561
`Patent 7,970,674
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL W. KIM,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2014-00115 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00056
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`On August 11, 2014, a conference call was held between counsel for
`
`both parties and Judges Cocks and Kim. The parties jointly requested the
`
`call to seek the Board’s guidance concerning a request for extension of time
`
`of the time periods set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11), so as to extend Due
`
`Dates 3-7 set forth in the Revised Scheduling Order (Paper 24).
`
`The parties agree on the following. Petitioner and Patent Owner have
`
`agreed to a merger. The merger cannot be finalized without approval from
`
`the Federal Trade Commission, a process that can take as little as five
`
`months, and as long as one year. Until the merger is finalized, no settlement
`
`agreement can be filed so as to jointly request termination of this proceeding
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 327. During the merger review process, both parties find
`
`themselves in an awkward position in this proceeding, as continuing the
`
`adversarial process may not be in the best interests of their respective clients
`
`were the merger to be approved, and yet the current Revised Scheduling
`
`Order has due dates for several papers that would occur prior to the parties
`
`knowing the results of the review process.
`
`The parties understand that the due dates in the Revised Scheduling
`
`Order are necessary in order for the Board to meet its statutory requirement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) to issue a final written decision within one
`
`year of March 10, 2014, the date a trial was instituted in this proceeding
`
`(Paper 13). The parties note that 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) allows the Director
`
`to extend the one-year time period by not more than six months for good
`
`cause shown, and that because this proceeding has been joined with
`
`CBM2014-00115 (Paper 23) under 35 U.S.C. § 325(c), additional extensions
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00056
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`of time may be available under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11). Accordingly, the
`
`parties request an extension of time as to all due dates, from those set forth
`
`in the Revised Scheduling Order to the date the Board must issue a final
`
`written decision, that is roughly commensurate with the length of the merger
`
`review process, i.e., six months to one year.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the parties are authorized to file a joint motion of not
`
`more than two pages by 8 PM EST on August 18, 2014. The joint motion
`
`should set forth specific lengths for the extensions of time requested for each
`
`due date in the Revised Scheduling Order, as well as for the Board’s
`
`statutory due date of issuing a final written decision. The joint motion
`
`should also address the factual support for the specific lengths requested;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are reminded that they already
`
`have authorization to stipulate to extensions of Due Dates 2 and 3 set forth
`
`in the Revised Scheduling Order, so along as the dates are no later than Due
`
`Date 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00056
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Rosato
`Jennifer Schmidt
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jschmidt@wsgr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven D. Lawrenz
`Ryan J. McBrayer
`slawrenz@perkinscoie.com
`rmcBrayer@perkinscoie.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
