`
` Entered: December 16, 2013
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GAME SHOW NETWORK, LLC and WORLDWINNER.COM, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`JOHN H. STEPHENSON
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00289
`Patent 6,174,237
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00289
`Patent 6,174,237
`
`
`On December 13, 2013, the initial conference call1 was held between
`
`counsel for the respective parties and Judges Medley, Turner, and Wood.
`
`
`
`Motions
`
`Neither party seeks authorization to file a motion at this time. A general
`
`discussion was had regarding motions to amend. As explained, if Patent Owner
`
`determines that it will file a motion to amend, Patent Owner must arrange a
`
`conference call soon thereafter with the Board and opposing counsel to discuss the
`
`proposed motion to amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). For guidance on motions
`
`to amend, Patent Owner is directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`motion to amend guidelines, along with the guidelines provided in Nichia
`
`Corporation v. Emcore Corporation, IPR2012-00005, Paper 27 (June 3, 2013);
`
`Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2013-00027, Paper 26
`
`(June 11, 2013); and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Contentguard
`
`Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00136, Paper 33 (November 7, 2014).
`
`The parties were reminded that if they seek authorization to file a motion not
`
`contemplated per the Scheduling Order, the party requesting such authorization
`
`must arrange a conference call with opposing counsel and the Board.
`
`
`
`
`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
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00289
`Patent 6,174,237
`
`
`Counsel for the respective parties indicated that they have no issues with the
`
`Schedule
`
`Scheduling Order entered November 19, 2013.
`
`Objections to evidence
`
`Clarification was sought regarding rule 42.64(b)(2), which specifies that a
`
`party may respond to an objection of its evidence by serving supplemental
`
`evidence within ten business days of service of the objection. Counsel for
`
`Petitioner inquired whether the supplemental evidence should be filed with the
`
`Board at the same time it is served. The rule does not specify that supplemental
`
`evidence be filed at the same time the evidence is served. As explained, a party
`
`seeking to file supplemental evidence should arrange a conference call with the
`
`Board and opposing counsel to seek authorization to file such supplemental
`
`evidence.
`
`It is
`
`Order
`
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00289
`Patent 6,174,237
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brenton R. Babcock
`Ted M. Cannon
`Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP
`Brent.babock@knobbe.com
`Ted.cannon@knobbe.com
`boxgsn@knobbe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daniel W. McDonald
`Robert A. Kalinsky
`Merchant & Gould, P.C.
`dmcdonald@merchantgould.com
`rkalinsky@merchantgould.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
