`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
`
`
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
