`571-272-7822
`
`Date: August 28, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZYNGA INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00156 (Patent 7,860,131)
`IPR2013-00162 (Patent 7,908,638)
`IPR2013-00164 (Patent 7,797,717)
`IPR2013-00171 (Patent 7,734,251)1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses a similar issue in the four cases. Therefore, we exercise
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however, are not
`authorized to use this style of heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00156 (Patent 7,860,131)
`IPR2013-00162 (Patent 7,908,638)
`IPR2013-00164 (Patent 7,797,717)
`IPR2013-00171 (Patent 7,734,251)
`
`
`On August 27, 2013, the following individuals participated in a conference
`
`call:
`
`(1) Mr. David Cochran, Mr. Joseph Sauer, and Mr. Louis Touton, counsel
`for Zynga, Inc. (“Zynga”);
`(2) Mr. Thomas Scott, Jr. and Mr. Stephen Schreiner, counsel for
`Personalized Media Communications (“PMC”); and
`(3) Sally Medley, Karl Easthom, and Joni Chang, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`Motions List
`In preparation for the initial call, PMC filed a motions list. Paper 13.2
`However, Zynga did not. Counsel for Zynga confirmed that Zynga does not seek
`authorization to file any motions.
`
`
`Motion to Amend
`During the call, counsel for PMC represented that at this time, PMC does not
`intend to file a motion to amend. As discussed, if PMC determines that it will file
`a motion to amend, PMC must arrange a conference call soon thereafter with the
`Board and opposing counsel to discuss the proposed motion to amend.
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery
`On its list, PMC indicates that it may seek authorization to file a motion for
`additional discovery. Paper 13 at 2. However, at this time, PMC does not seek
`authorization to file a motion for additional discovery. The parties may agree to
`
`2 The motions list is identical for each of the four cases. For purposes of this
`order, we reference the paper filed in IPR2013-00156.
`2
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00156 (Patent 7,860,131)
`IPR2013-00162 (Patent 7,908,638)
`IPR2013-00164 (Patent 7,797,717)
`IPR2013-00171 (Patent 7,734,251)
`
`additional discovery between themselves and only if they disagree is it necessary
`to seek Board authorization to file a motion for additional discovery. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.51(b)(2). If PMC seeks authorization to file a motion for additional
`discovery, PMC must arrange a conference call with opposing counsel and the
`Board.
`
`Motion to Exclude
`On its list, PMC indicates that it may file a motion to exclude. Paper 13 at 2.
`
`However, at this time, counsel for PMC did not indicate that PMC intends to file a
`motion to exclude.
`The parties were reminded that a motion to exclude is available to a party
`wishing to challenge the admissibility of evidence and to preserve an objection
`made previously. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`48767 (Aug. 14, 2012). A party following these guidelines may file a motion to
`exclude without prior authorization from the Board. The rule specifies as much
`and explains that a motion to exclude must identify the objections in the record and
`must explain the objections. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). The parties were reminded that
`a motion to exclude is not, for example, an opportunity for a party to request the
`Board to not consider, or to strike, portions of an opponent’s brief because the
`portions allegedly raise new issues in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).3
`
`Schedule
`
`
`3 The rule explains that all arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be
`made in the motion and that a reply may only respond to arguments raised in a
`corresponding opposition or patent owner response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00156 (Patent 7,860,131)
`IPR2013-00162 (Patent 7,908,638)
`IPR2013-00164 (Patent 7,797,717)
`IPR2013-00171 (Patent 7,734,251)
`
`
`Counsel for the respective parties indicated that they have no issues with the
`Scheduling Order entered July 25, 2013.
`
`
`
`Settlement
`There was no report of settlement.
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00156 (Patent 7,860,131)
`IPR2013-00162 (Patent 7,908,638)
`IPR2013-00164 (Patent 7,797,717)
`IPR2013-00171 (Patent 7,734,251)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`David Cochran
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`
`Joseph Sauer
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`
`Louis Touton
`lltouton@jonesday.com
`
`David Wu
`dwwu@jonesday.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Scott, Jr.
`tscott@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Stephen Schreiner
`sschreiner@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`5
`
`
`