`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 23
`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 CBM2014-00016
`Patent 6,871,325 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00016
`Patent 6,871,325 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 20). 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 20, 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
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00016
`Patent 6,871,325 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
`
`
`