Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: June 4, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EMC CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Cases IPR2013-00082 (Patent 5,978,791)
`IPR2013-00083 (Patent 6,415,280)
`IPR2013-00084 (Patent 7,945,544)
`IPR2013-00085 (Patent 7,945,539)
`IPR2013-00086 (Patent 7,949,662)
`IPR2013-00087 (Patent 8,001,096)1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in all six cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one opinion to be filed in each of the six cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent
`papers. Note that the petitioners for IPR2013-00082 and IPR2013-00083 are EMC
`Corporation and VMware, Inc.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: June 4, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EMC CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Cases IPR2013-00082 (Patent 5,978,791)
`IPR2013-00083 (Patent 6,415,280)
`IPR2013-00084 (Patent 7,945,544)
`IPR2013-00085 (Patent 7,945,539)
`IPR2013-00086 (Patent 7,949,662)
`IPR2013-00087 (Patent 8,001,096)1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in all six cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one opinion to be filed in each of the six cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent
`papers. Note that the petitioners for IPR2013-00082 and IPR2013-00083 are EMC
`Corporation and VMware, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00082, Patent 5,978,791
`IPR2013-00083, Patent 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00084, Patent 7,945,544
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00085, Patent 7,945,539
`IPR2013-00086, Patent 7,949,662
`IPR2013-00087, Patent 8,001,096
`
`
`
`On June 3, 2013, the initial conference call for the six above-identified trials
`was held between respective counsel for the parties and Judges Turner, Chang, and
`Zecher. The purpose of the call was to discuss the motions that the parties intend
`to file and any proposed changes to the trial schedule which has been synchronized
`across all six inter partes reviews.
`During the conference call, EMC indicated that it will seek authorization to
`file a motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123. To be
`better informed, the Board requested EMC to identify the supplemental
`information that it wishes to submit by sending a list of the supplemental
`information to the following electronic-mail address: Trials@uspto.gov.
`Each party further indicated that it may file a motion for pro hac vice
`admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). The Board authorized the filing of the
`motions, and noted that any motion for pro hac vice admission filed by the parties
`shall also indicate that the person sought to be admitted will be subject to the
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
`PersonalWeb requested a modification of the due date for filing a patent
`owner response and a coordination of discovery between the six trials because it
`was concerned with the availability of EMC’s declarant. Upon inquiry, EMC
`expressed that it will work with PersonalWeb to provide availability dates of their
`declarant so that the trial schedule would not be impacted. In addition, to increase
`efficiency, the parties stipulated to a single deposition useable in all six trials for
`EMC’s declarant. The Board suggested that the parties work together to stipulate
`the time limits for taking testimony and any changes to DUE DATES 1 through 3.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00082, Patent 5,978,791
`IPR2013-00083, Patent 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00084, Patent 7,945,544
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00085, Patent 7,945,539
`IPR2013-00086, Patent 7,949,662
`IPR2013-00087, Patent 8,001,096
`
`
`
`PersonalWeb indicated that it may file a motion to seal regarding
`confidential information. The Board noted that the Decision on Motion to Seal
`entered in IPR2012-00001, Paper 36, contains a helpful guidance on filing a
`motion to seal. The Board also explained that, prior to filing such a motion,
`PersonalWeb should confer with EMC regarding having a protective order put in
`place to cover disclosure of confidential information. The parties should contact
`the Board if they intend to deviate from the default protective order in Appendix B
`to the Board’s Trial Practice Guide. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48769 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`PersonalWeb also requested authorization to file an opposition to the motion
`for joinder of IPR2013-00319 with IPR2013-00082. The Board authorized the
`filing of such an opposition. See Order entered in IPR2013-00319, Paper 8.
`Upon inquiry by the Board, PersonalWeb indicated that it is still considering
`filing a motion to amend claims. The Board noted that if PersonalWeb wishes to
`file a motion to amend claims, PersonalWeb should confer with the Board prior to
`the filing of such a motion as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`It is
`ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for taking a single deposition
`useable in all six trials for EMC’s declarant is authorized; the parties are authorized
`to stipulate to different time limits for taking testimony for a resulting single
`deposition; and the parties are authorized to file a resulting single deposition
`useable in all six trials;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are authorized to file a notice of
`stipulation of any changes to DUE DATES 1 through 3;
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00082, Patent 5,978,791
`IPR2013-00083, Patent 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00084, Patent 7,945,544
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00085, Patent 7,945,539
`IPR2013-00086, Patent 7,949,662
`IPR2013-00087, Patent 8,001,096
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties need authorization to deviate
`from the default protective order, the parties may initiate a joint conference call;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are authorized to file motions for
`pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), and that such motions shall be
`filed in accordance with the “Order --Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission” in Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT), a copy of which is available on the
`Board Web site under “Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” Any
`motion for pro hac vice admission filed by the parties shall also indicate that the
`person sought to be admitted will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct. See Changes to Representation of Others Before the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 20180 (Apr. 3, 2013)
`(effective May 3, 2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00085, Patent 7,945,539
`IPR2013-00086, Patent 7,949,662
`IPR2013-00087, Patent 8,001,096
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00082, Patent 5,978,791
`IPR2013-00083, Patent 6,415,280
`IPR2013-00084, Patent 7,945,544
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Peter M. Dichiara, Esq.
`David L. Cavanaugh, Esq.
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph A. Rhoa, Esq.
`Updeep. S. Gill, Esq.
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.com
`
`5
`
`
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
