`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: August 23, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WAVELOCK ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00149
`Patent 6,455,138
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and BRYAN F. MOORE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On August 22, 2013, the following individuals participated in the initial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`Patent 6,455,138
`
`conference call:1
`(1) Mr. Mehran Arjomand, counsel for Wavelock Advanced Technology
`Co., Ltd. (“Wavelock”);
`(2) Mr. Patrick Doody and Mr. Bryan Collins, counsel for Textron
`Innovations Inc. (“Textron”); and
`(3) Sally Medley, Josiah Cocks, and Bryan Moore, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Motions
`In preparation for the initial call, both parties filed a motions list. Papers 10
`and 13. The parties’ respective lists were discussed. Wavelock seeks
`authorization to file a motion to designate an additional back-up counsel. Paper 13
`at 1. There is no need to file a motion in that regard. Wavelock may add an
`additional backup counsel through PRPS, file a power of attorney if necessary, and
`provide a notice update. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8.
`During the call, counsel for Textron represented that at this time, Textron
`does not intend to file a motion to amend. As discussed, if Textron determines that
`it will file a motion to amend, Textron must arrange a conference call soon
`thereafter with the Board and opposing counsel to discuss the proposed motion to
`amend.
`Counsel for Textron sought clarification regarding compelling the testimony
`of a third party witness. A party seeking such discovery must first file a motion for
`additional discovery. Prior authorization is necessary prior to filing such a motion.
`
`
`1 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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`Patent 6,455,138
`
`
`If such a motion is granted, then the Board would provide further instructions to
`the party seeking to compel the testimony. At this time, however, the Board
`understands that Textron does not seek authorization to file a motion for additional
`discovery.
`
`
`
`
`Schedule
`Counsel for the respective parties indicated that they have no issues with the
`Scheduling Order (Paper 9) entered August 1, 2013.
`
`
`
`Settlement
`A general discussion was had regarding settlement. At this time, the parties
`have no report of a settlement agreement.
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`Patent 6,455,138
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Mehran Arjomand
`marjomand@mofo.com
`
`Jonathan Bockman
`jbockman@mofo.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Patrick Doody
`patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Bryan Collins
`bryan.collins@pillsburylaw.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
