`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`Entered: January 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SEQUENOM, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
`THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415 B2
`____________
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN and FRANCISCO C. PRATS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`An initial conference call was held on Monday, January 6, 2014, among R.
`
`Danny Huntington, representing Patent Owner; Steven O’Connor, representing
`Petitioner; and Judges Green and Prats. A court reporter was present on the call,
`and a transcript was filed by Petitioner as an exhibit (Ex. 1013). 1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Scheduling Order
`Patent Owner had some reservations regarding the scheduling order. In
`particular, Patent Owner noted that the instant proceeding is related to Interference
`105,922, which is scheduled for hearing on February 25, 2014. Patent Owner
`noted that while patentability issues are technically not at issue in the interference,
`there may be some overlapping issues as to claim construction and Lo II. Patent
`Owner suggested that the Board may wish to modify the scheduling order to
`accommodate the hearing in the related interference.
`Upon conferring with the Administrative Patent Judge who is managing the
`related interference, the Board sees no reason to modify the scheduling order at
`this time.
`
`III. Motions Lists
`
`Patent Owner did not file a proposed motions list before the initial
`
`conference call. Petitioner’s list (Paper 10) included a motion for the pro hac vice
`admission of Michael J. Malecek, which the Board noted was authorized in Paper
`4. Petitioner also listed motions that are automatically authorized to be filed
`during the proceeding, such as motions for observations on cross-examination. We
`
`
`1 This order summarizes the statements made during the conference call. A more
`detailed record may be found in the transcript.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415 B2
`
`note that there is no need to include such motions in the list of proposed motions.
`As issues arise, the parties may contact the Board to discuss the filing of any
`additional motions.
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Steven P. O’Connor
`Michele C. Bosch
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`steven.oconnor@finnegan.com
`michele.bosch@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`R. Danny Huntington
`Sharon E. Crane, Ph.D.
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`dhuntington@rfem.com
`scrane@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`