`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 56
`Date: November 6, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CLEARLAMP, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00020 (SCM)
`Patent 7,297,364 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On November 5, 2013, a conference call was held between counsel for the
`respective parties and Judges Medley, Turner, and Cocks.
`The purpose of the conference call was for the parties to seek guidance on
`whether Petitioner may cross-examine two of Patent Owner’s witnesses.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`In support of Patent Owner’s reply to Petitioner’s opposition to Patent
`Owner’s motion to amend, Patent Owner relies on the declaration of A. Harvey
`Bell (Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 54-55, and 79) and the declaration of Dimitris Katsamberis (Ex.
`2007, ¶¶ 27-29). Paper 55 at 3-4 (“Patent Owner’s reply”). According to counsel
`for the respective parties, Patent Owner did not rely on either declaration in
`support of Patent Owner’s motion to amend (Paper 38), but did rely on both
`declarations in support of Patent Owner’s response (Paper 33). Petitioner cross-
`examined both witnesses as to the declarations they made in support of Patent
`Owner’s response.
`Based on the discussion had during the conference call, Petitioner withdrew
`its request to cross-examine Mr. Katsamberis, but argued that it should be able to
`cross-examine A. Harvey Bell. Specifically, counsel for Petitioner argued that Mr.
`Bell’s testimony was relied on in a different light in the context of Patent Owner’s
`reply than how it was relied on in the context of Patent Owner’s response. As
`such, Petitioner argues that it should be authorized to cross-examine Mr. Bell.
`Patent Owner opposed any additional cross-examination of Mr. Bell. Based on the
`discussion had, the Board agrees with the Petitioner and authorizes Petitioner to
`cross-examine Mr. Bell. As explained, the scope of the cross-examination shall be
`limited to questioning Mr. Bell on his statements made in Exhibit 2004, ¶¶ 54-55,
`and 79.
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to cross-examine A. Harvey Bell
`and that the scope of the cross-examination shall be limited to questioning Mr. Bell
`on his statements made in Exhibit 2004, ¶¶ 54-55, and 79.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364 B2
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Alan L. Barry
`Jason A. Engel
`Benjamin Weed
`Viren Soni
`K&L GATES LLP
`alan.barry@klgates.com
`jason.engel@klgates.com
`benjamin.weed@klgates.com
`viren.soni@klgates.com
`
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`
`Matthew L. Cutler
`Bryan K.Wheelock
`Douglas A. Robinson
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
`mcutler@hdp.com
`bwheelock@hdp.com
`drobinson@hdp.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
