`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 20
`Entered: April 10, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH
`ADVANCE CENTERS, INC., and CNU ONLINE HOLDINGS, LLC
`F/K/A CASH AMERICA NET HOLDINGS, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`RETIREMENT CAPITAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2014-00012
`US Patent 6,625,582
`_______________
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00012
`US Patent 6,625,582
`
`
`An initial conference call was held on April 9, 2014 and attended by the
`
`above-identified panel members and respective counsel for the parties. The
`
`following matters were discussed.
`
`
`
`Scheduling Order
`
`The parties indicated that they have no concerns with the Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 17) entered on March 25, 2014. As indicated in the Scheduling Order, the
`
`parties may stipulate to different dates for Due Dates 1-3. Paper 17, 2. To the
`
`extent that the parties reach an agreement on different dates for Due Dates 1-3, the
`
`parties will need to file a notice of stipulation.
`
`
`
`Motions
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner indicated that Patent Owner does not intend to file
`
`a motion to amend at this time. Should Patent Owner decide to file a motion to
`
`amend, it first must confer with the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). With
`
`respect to a possible motion to amend, Patent Owner is reminded that, unlike a
`
`challenge to a patented claim, where the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate
`
`unpatentability, with a motion to amend, the burden is on the patent owner to
`
`demonstrate patentability. We direct the parties to the discussion in Idle Free
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc. of the requirements for a motion to amend claims.
`
`See Decision—Motion to Amend Claims, IPR2012-00027, Paper 26; see also Final
`
`Written Decision, IPR2012-00027, Paper 66.
`
`
`
`Protective Order
`
`The parties indicated that, at this time, they do not expect to rely upon
`
`confidential information. Thus, no protective order is required at this time. Should
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00012
`US Patent 6,625,582
`
`a party discover that certain potentially confidential materials are required for their
`
`case, the party is encouraged to seek a conference with the Board to discuss a
`
`possible protective order prior to filing a motion to seal.
`
`
`
`The parties indicated that they have not had discussions regarding
`
`Settlement
`
`settlement.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized other than those already
`
`authorized by rule or in the Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`For Petitioners:
`
`John Caracappa
`Harold Fox
`Gretchen Miller
`William Barrow
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`jcaracappa@steptoe.com
`hfox@steptoe.com
`gmiller@steptoe.com
`wbarrow@steptoe.com
`
`Christopher J. Chan
`Mia K. Fiedler
`SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
`chris.chan@sutherland.com
`mia.fiedler@sutherland.com
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00012
`US Patent 6,625,582
`
`Mark T. Deming
`mdeming@polsinelli.com
`POLSINELLI PC
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Casey Griffith
`Shital Desai
`KLEMCHUK KUBASTA LLP
`casey.griffith@kk-llp.com
`sita.desai@kk-llp.com
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`