`
`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
`
`