`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 24
`Date: April 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`AGILYSYS, INC., ET AL.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00015
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`Order
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.05
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00015
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`
`On April 15, 2014, an initial telephone conference call was held between
`
`
`
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Petravick, Rice, and White.
`
`Neither party filed a proposed motions list. Counsel for each party expressed that
`
`the party is not contemplating filing any motion. Both parties, however, desired an
`
`opportunity to see the Supreme Court’s decision in CLS Bank International v. Alice
`
`Corporation Pty. Ltd. (Docket No. 13-298), prior to submitting further substantive
`
`papers in this case. The parties represent that the Supreme Court’s decision is
`
`expected by the end of June 2014.
`
`
`
`Counsel for the parties explained that they do not need the Board to reset
`
`any due date. Instead, they can stipulate to a seven week extension of Due Dates 1
`
`and 2, as is authorized in the Scheduling Order of March 26, 2014 (Paper 21). The
`
`Scheduling Order provides that the parties are authorized to stipulate to different
`
`Due Dates 1-3, so long as the extended due dates do not extend beyond Due Date
`
`4. Paper 21, 2.
`
`
`
`We noted that the parties can proceed to stipulate to the desired seven-week
`
`extension of Due Dates 1 and 2, and that that does not require approval of the
`
`Board. We further authorized the parties to stipulate to extensions of Due Dates 1-
`
`6, so long as the extended due dates do not extend beyond Due Date 7.
`
`
`
`Neither party had any other issue to discuss in the initial conference call.
`
`We further noted that in the event the parties file their briefs in this proceeding and
`
`the Supreme Court subsequently renders a decision impacting the proceeding, the
`
`parties may ask for authorization to file supplemental briefing.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the parties are authorized to stipulate to extensions of Due
`
`Dates 1-6, so long as the extended dates do not extend beyond Due Date 7.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00015
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard Zembek
`Gilbert Greene
`richard.zembeck@nortonrosefulbright.com
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`John Osborne
`Michael Fabiano
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`
`3
`
`
`
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
