`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 68
`Entered: November 14, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AVAYA INC., DELL INC., SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-000711
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and GLENN J. PERRY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`A conference call in the above proceeding was held on
`
`November 13, 2013 among counsel for Petitioners Avaya Inc. (“Avaya”),
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2013-00385 and IPR2013-00495 have been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`Sony Corporation of America, and Hewlett-Packard Co.; counsel for Patent
`
`Owner; and Judges Chang, Arbes, and Perry. The call was requested by
`
`Patent Owner to seek an extension of DUE DATES 4-6 in the Revised
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper 51).
`
`Patent Owner stated that it anticipates filing, with its reply to Avaya’s
`
`opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to amend due on November 14, 2013, a
`
`new declaration from Dr. James Knox. According to Patent Owner,
`
`however, Dr. Knox is unavailable for deposition until December 3, 2013.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner requested that DUE DATES 4-6 be postponed so
`
`that Avaya may depose Dr. Knox and prepare any motion for observation it
`
`desires to file by DUE DATE 4. Avaya opposed Patent Owner’s request,
`
`arguing that Patent Owner should not be permitted to rely on a reply witness
`
`unless it makes the witness available for deposition during the required time
`
`period. Avaya further requested that, if DUE DATE 4 is extended to permit
`
`a later deposition of Dr. Knox, Avaya should be permitted the same number
`
`of days between DUE DATES 4 and 5 as are present in the existing
`
`schedule.
`
`Patent Owner also requested that DUE DATE 7 (oral argument) be
`
`postponed from January 17, 2014 to at least January 27, 2014 because one of
`
`its back-up counsel in the instant proceeding, Greg Dovel, has a district
`
`court trial scheduled to begin on January 13, 2014. Patent Owner did not
`
`represent that its other designated counsel—lead counsel Robert G. Mukai
`
`and back-up counsel Charles F. Wieland III—are similarly unavailable on
`
`January 17, 2014. See Paper 8. Avaya opposed Patent Owner’s request, but
`
`stated that it needed to check its counsel schedules regarding other potential
`
`dates on which it may be available for oral argument.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`As discussed during the call, the Board is persuaded that minor
`
`extensions of DUE DATES 4-6 are appropriate to accommodate the
`
`deposition of Dr. Knox and related briefing, and would not be unduly
`
`prejudicial to Petitioners. A Revised Scheduling Order will be entered
`
`setting the following dates:
`
`DUE DATE 4
`
`December 11, 2013
`
`DUE DATE 5
`
`December 23, 2013
`
`DUE DATE 6
`
`December 30, 2013
`
`However, given the need for the Board to complete this proceeding in an
`
`efficient and expeditious manner and the fact that Patent Owner has other
`
`counsel available for oral argument on January 17, 2014, DUE DATE 7 will
`
`not be postponed. Patent Owner indicated during the call that Mr. Dovel is
`
`available the week of January 6, 2014. Petitioners and Patent Owner shall
`
`confer and provide to the Board multiple alternative dates during the week
`
`of January 6, 2014 on which counsel for all parties are available for oral
`
`argument. Patent Owner’s request to move DUE DATE 7 will be subject to
`
`Board availability.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioners and Patent Owner shall confer and
`
`provide, by email to Trials@uspto.gov by November 14, 2013, multiple
`
`dates during the week of January 6, 2014 on which counsel for all parties are
`
`available for oral argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Jonathan Lindsay
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`JSanok@Crowell.com
`JLindsay@Crowell.com
`
`Michael J. Scheer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`mscheer@winston.com
`tdunham@winston.com
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Erika Arner
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`
`
`Robert J. Walters
`Charles J. Hawkins
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`rwalters@mwe.com
`chawkins@mwe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert G. Mukai
`Charles F. Wieland III
`BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY P.C.
`Robert.Mukai@BIPC.com
`Charles.Wieland@BIPC.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`