`
`
` Entered: September 26, 2013
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2012-00042 (SCM)
`Patent 6,240,376 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On September 25, 2013, the following individuals participated in a
`
`conference call:
`
`(1) Mr. Travis Jensen, counsel for Synopsys, Inc. (Synopsis);
`
`(2) Mr. Christopher McKee and Mr. Michael Cuviello, counsel for
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376 B1
`
`Mentor Graphics Corporation (Mentor Graphics); and
`
`(3) Howard Blankenship, Sally Medley, and Jennifer Bisk,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The purpose of the call was for Mentor Graphics to seek a three page
`
`extension of the five page limit for its motion to amend reply.
`
`
`
`Mentor Graphics’ reply is due September 26, 2013. Mentor
`
`Graphics requested a conference call concerning its reply mid-day
`
`September 25, 2013. During the call, counsel for Mentor Graphics
`
`explained that because Synopsis relies on six new references in its
`
`opposition to the motion to amend, one of which Mentor Graphics intends to
`
`antedate, Mentor Graphics needs more pages to fully address all the issues
`
`raised by Synopsis. Counsel for Synopsis opposed the request.
`
`An inter partes review is a streamlined and focused proceeding,
`
`unlike ex parte prosecution or patent reexamination. A final determination
`
`must be made generally no later than a year after institution of the inter
`
`partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). As a result, and pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes review proceedings were
`
`promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As such,
`
`page limit extensions will be granted on rare occasions. Based on the facts
`
`presented, Mentor Graphics did not provide a sufficient basis for granting an
`
`extension of the page limit for its reply.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00042
`Patent 6,240,376 B1
`
`
`Lastly, the Board explained that when a party requests a conference
`
`call the day prior to when a paper is due, the party runs the risk that either
`
`opposing counsel or the Board may not be available to take the call. The
`
`parties are encouraged not to wait until the final hour to arrange a conference
`
`call on an urgent matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`Order
`
`ORDERED that Mentor Graphics’ request for a three page extension
`
`for its reply is denied.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William H. Wright
`Travis Jensen
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`Email: wwright@orrick.com
`Email: tjensen@orrick.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher L. McKee
`Michael S. Cuviello
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`Email: mentoripr@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`3