`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
` Entered: 7 June 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MUNCHKIN, INC. AND TOYS “R” US, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
` LUV N’ CARE, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00072
`Patent D617,465
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On June 6, 2013, the initial conference call for this proceeding was
`
`held between respective counsel for the parties and Judges Medley, Bisk,
`
`and Fitzpatrick. Neither party filed a list of intended motions prior to the
`
`call.
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00072
`D617,465
`
`
`At the outset of the call, lead counsel for Patent Owner was reminded
`
`that it is his responsibility to make sure the electronic filing system, PRPS,
`
`has up to date information, including email addresses of counsel. This will
`
`ensure that counsel receives the automatic email notification from PRPS
`
`when documents, including orders, are filed in this case. Any questions
`
`regarding PRPS should be directed to the PTAB support phone number.
`
`During the call, counsel for both parties indicated that they do not, at
`
`this time, need to modify any due dates set in the Scheduling Order dated
`
`April 25, 2013.
`
`Counsel for Petitioners represented that they do not seek authorization
`
`to file any motions at this time. Counsel for Patent Owner represented that
`
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend either in lieu of, or in addition to,
`
`the patent owner response due July 25, 2013. As discussed, in filing its
`
`motion to amend, Patent Owner should note the guidance provided in the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide1, 37 C.F.R. § 42.121, and certain
`
`decisions of the Board, including IPR2013-00016, Paper 20. In particular,
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.121(b)(1) requires the patent owner to set forth the support in
`
`the original disclosure of the patent for the proposed substitute claim.
`
`The parties also had a brief discussion of discovery. Counsel for
`
`Petitioners represented that discovery would be inappropriate for this
`
`proceeding. Counsel for Patent Owner, however, was unsure, at this time,
`
`whether discovery would be required or not. As discussed, the rules
`
`governing inter partes review contemplate several types of discovery, some
`
`of which are automatic and do not require authorization of the Board, such
`
`as routine discovery. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). Parties may also agree to
`
`
`1 77 Fed. Reg. 48766.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00072
`D617,465
`
`additional discovery between themselves. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2). Finally,
`
`if necessary, a party may request authorization to move for additional
`
`discovery, but any authorized motion must show that such additional
`
`discovery is in the interests of justice. Id.
`
`Lastly, the parties represented that there have been no recent
`
`settlement discussions.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Luv N’ Care is authorized to file a motion to amend
`
`no later than July 25, 2013, and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all due dates set in the Scheduling
`
`Order dated April 25, 2013, remain unchanged, subject to any stipulation by
`
`the parties as to Due Dates 1-3.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Dane Baltich
`Alston & Bird, LLP
`Dane.baltich@alston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Morris Cohen
`Lee Goldberg
`Goldberg Cohen, LLP
`mcohen@goldbergcohen.com
`lgoldberg@goldbergcohen.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
