`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: January 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
` Case CBM2015-00091 Patent 6,384,850 B11
`Case CBM2015-00099 Patent 6,781,325 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses a similar issue in the both cases. Therefore, we exercise
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however, are not
`authorized to use this style of heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091 Patent 6,384,850 B1
`CBM2015-00099 Patent 6,781,325 B1
`
`On January 28, 2016, a conference call was conducted between respective
`counsel for the parties and Judges White, Petravick, and Rice. Petitioner,
`Starbucks Corp., was represented by counsel, Patrick N. McKeever and Bing Ai.
`Patent Owner, Ameranth, Inc., was represented by counsel, John Osborne and
`Michael Fabiano.2 A court reporter was present and counsel indicated a copy of
`the transcript would be placed in the file. The purpose of the call was to discuss
`Petitioner’s assertion that the Patent Owner Response was formatted improperly in
`violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6.
`Petitioner alleges that the format of the Patent Owner Response is not in
`compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6. Petitioner alleges that the main text and the
`footnotes are not double spaced. Patent Owner indicates that the Patent Owner
`Response was prepared using spacing of at least 28 point (double the 14-point font
`of the text) for the main text, but maintains that such spacing is in compliance with
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6. Patent Owner acknowledges that the footnotes were not double
`spaced, but maintains that its spacing is standard practice.
`A document prepared utilizing Patent Owner’s method generally produces
`up to 23 lines of text per page, while a document prepared utilizing double spacing
`generally has up to 20 lines of text per page. The rule states that “[d]ouble spacing
`must be used,” and lists some exceptions. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii). The
`listed exceptions do not include footnotes, and the rule does not state that lines may
`be spaced using double the font size. See id. Patent Owner and Petitioner both
`stated that they used Microsoft Word to prepare filings in this case. All parties in
`
`
`2 James Heintz and Robert Williams, counsel for petitioner in CBM2015-00080
`and CBM2015-00082, also participated in the call.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091 Patent 6,384,850 B1
`CBM2015-00099 Patent 6,781,325 B1
`
`this case shall prepare their filings using double spacing as provided by Microsoft
`Office.
`Patent Owner is to file Corrected Patent Owner Responses in these matters
`by February 1, 2016. These new filings shall comply with all rules specified in 37
`C.F.R. § 42.6 and shall not include any new evidence or arguments. Patent Owner
`shall provide Petitioner with documents showing redlines indicating the changes
`made between the previously filed Patent Owner Responses and the Corrected
`Patent Owner Responses. These redline documents shall not be filed.
`ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner will file Corrected Patent Owner Responses
`in CBM2015-00091 and CBM2015-00099 by February 1, 2016. These Corrected
`Patent Owner shall comply will all applicable rules including 37 C.F.R. § 42.6. No
`new arguments or evidence will be permitted in these Corrected Patent Owner
`Responses.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Bing Ai
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Osborne
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`
`Michael Fabiano
`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
