`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 19
`
`
` Entered: 29 May 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`INNOLUX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00060 (Patent 7,697,102 B2) (SCM)
`IPR2013-00064 (Patent 7,923,311 B2)
`IPR2013-00065 (Patent 7,923,311 B2)1
`_______________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and KEVIN F. TURNER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On May 28, 2013, the following individuals participated in the initial
`
`
`1 This order addresses the initial call held for all three cases. We exercise
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each of the three cases. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers since
`
`
`
`conference call:2
`(1) Mr. Scott McKeown and Mr. Gregory Cordrey, counsel for Innolux;
`(2) Mr. Sean Flood, Mr. Stanley Schlitter, and Mr. Douglas Peterson,
`counsel for SEL; and
`(3) Sally Medley, Karl Easthom, and Kevin Turner, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`Motions List
`In preparation for the initial call, SEL filed a motions list for IPR2013-
`00060 (Paper 16), but not for IPR2013-00064 and IPR2013-00065. Innolux did
`not file a motions list for any of the cases. Counsel for Innolux confirmed that
`Innolux does not seek to file any motions.
`
`
`Motion to Amend
`During the call, counsel for SEL represented that at this time, SEL does not
`intend to file a motion to amend in any of the three related proceedings. As
`discussed, if SEL determines that it will file a motion to amend in any of IPR2013-
`00060, IPR2013-00064 or IPR2013-00065, SEL must arrange a conference call
`soon thereafter with the Board and opposing counsel to discuss the proposed
`motion to amend.
`
`
`Schedule
`Counsel for the respective parties indicated that they have agreed to extend
`
`
`doing so may cause confusion.
`2 The initial conference call is held to discuss the Scheduling Order and any
`motions that the parties anticipate filing during the trial. Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Due Dates 1-3 by a week for IPR2013-00060. The parties were informed that they
`should file promptly a notice indicating the change. No other issues were raised
`with respect to the Scheduling Orders entered for the three related proceedings.
`
`
`Settlement
`There was no report of settlement.
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLEELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eric J. Robinson
`Sean C. Flood
`Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, PC
`erobinson@riplo.com
`sflood@riplo.com
`
`Mark J. Murphy
`Edward D. Manzo
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`mark.murphy@huschblackwell.com
`edward.manzo@huschblackwell.com
`
`Stanley A. Schlitter
`Douglas R. Peterson
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`sschlitt@steptoe.com
`dpeterson@steptoe.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`