`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: January 6, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CYANOTECH CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401 and IPR2013-00404 (consolidated)
`
`Patent 5,527,533
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ and SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`
`The initial conference call for this proceeding was held on January 6, 2014,
`
`between respective counsel for the parties and Judges Kamholz and Snedden.
`
`Cyanotech filed a list of proposed motions, Paper 24, but stated during the
`
`call that it does not, at present, intend to file any motions.
`
`The following subjects were discussed during the conference.
`
`Scheduling Order
`
`The parties confirmed that they have agreed, in principle, to change Due
`
`Date 1 to March 21, 2014, and to change Due Date 2 to May 21, 2014. We remind
`
`the parties that they must file an appropriate Notice with the Board to effect these
`
`changes.
`
`Protective Order
`
`We encourage the parties to operate under the Board’s default protective
`
`order, should that become necessary. See Default Protective Order, Office Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties choose
`
`to propose a protective order deviating from the default protective order they must
`
`submit the proposed protective order jointly. We would appreciate the inclusion of
`
`a marked-up comparison of the proposed and default protective orders so that we
`
`can readily understand the differences.
`
`Additional Discovery
`
`We encourage the parties to reach agreement on discovery by themselves
`
`and invite them to request a conference call with the Board only if they cannot
`
`reach agreement regarding specific discovery disputes.
`
`Motions Generally
`
`The parties are reminded that, except as otherwise provided in the Rules or
`
`Scheduling Order, Board authorization is required before filing a Motion. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.20(b). A party seeking to file a motion should request a conference to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`obtain authorization to file the motion. No motions are authorized in this
`
`proceeding at this time.
`
`Motion to Amend
`
`The University indicated its intention not to file a Motion to Amend.
`
`Motions for Pro Hac Vice Recognition of Counsel
`
`Cyanotech indicated that it has no objection to the University’s motions for
`
`pro hac vice recognition of Messrs. Werner and Kohlhepp. We will act on those
`
`motions in due course.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`
`George E. Darby
`PARADISE PATENT SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark D. Schuman
`Iain A. McIntyre
`CARLSON CASPERS
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
