`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date Entered: November 20, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ABB INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00074
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`Patent 8,073,557 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00074
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`Patent 8,073,557 B2
`
`
`The Board initiated a conference call with counsel for the parties on
`November 18, 2013. In addition to counsel for Petitioner, ABB Inc., and Patent
`Owner, Roy-G-Biv Corporation, Administrative Patent Judges Giannetti, Bisk, and
`Moore participated in the call. The purpose of the call was to address:
`1. Petitioner’s request to withdraw its motion to seal certain exhibits in
`IPR2013-00074;
`2. Patent Owner’s motion to seal certain exhibits;
`3. Patent Owner’s request to file an “updated” motion to seal;
`4. Patent Owner’s email of November 14, 2013 reporting the results of the
`“meet and confer” required by the Board’s previous order.
`After due consideration of the issues, the Board determined the following:
`1. Petitioner’s request to withdraw its motion to seal in IPR2013-00074 is
`denied. The same motion was filed in IPR2013-00062. The Board’s Order in
`IPR2013-00062 denying the motion was intended to apply also to IPR2013-00074.
`The Board therefore denies the motion filed in IPR2013-00074 for the reasons
`stated in IPR2013-00062, Paper 50. Petitioner’s request to withdraw the motion is
`denied as moot.
`2. Patent Owner’s motion to seal and its request to file an “updated” motion
`to seal likewise are denied as moot in light of the outcome of the conference.
`3. The Board determined that Patent Owner has made a good faith effort to
`resolve the issues raised by these motions. Patent Owner reports that it has culled
`down to five the number of exhibits that require redaction. The Petitioner and
`Patent Owner represent that redactions are not extensive and the redacted material
`is not necessary to determine the issue for which the exhibits are being offered by
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00074
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`Patent 8,073,557 B2
`
`Petitioner. The Board, therefore, directed the Petitioner to file the redacted
`exhibits in substitution for the corresponding exhibits that have been sealed.
`In view of the foregoing, it is therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to withdraw its motion to seal in
`IPR2013-00074 is denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to seal and its request to
`file an “updated” motion to seal are denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED for a period of five business days after entry of this
`Order, Petitioner is authorized to substitute redacted exhibits for any of the exhibits
`that are the subject of Patent Owner’s motion to seal, viz., Exhibits 1110-16, 1120,
`1122-26, and 1128-29. The unredacted version of those Exhibits may be
`withdrawn. Patent Owner and Petitioner will agree in advance on the redactions,
`which will be minimized, not to include any information that is necessary to the
`issue for which the Exhibits are offered;
`FURTHER ORDERED that following expiration of that five-day period, the
`Exhibits identified in the preceding paragraph will be unsealed by the Board and
`made available to the public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00074
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`Patent 8,073,557 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Richard D. McLeod
`Michael D. Jones
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`
`Steven M. Auvil
`Squire Sanders (US) LLP
`steven.auvil@squiresanders.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Richard T. Black
`Joel B. Ard
`Foster Pepper PLLC
`blacr@foster.com
`ardjo@foster.com
`
`Richard S. Meyer
`Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
`rmeyer@bsfllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
