`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
`
`
`