`
`
` 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
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
