`Date: July 2, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`Order
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788
`
`
`
`Introduction
`On June 30, 2014, a telephone conference call was held between respective
`
`counsel for the parties and Judges Kim, Zecher, Jefferson, and Parvis. Petitioner
`(“Toyota”) initiated the conference call to request authorization to file a motion to
`strike and expunge portions of Patent Owner’s Reply In Support of its Motion to
`Amend filed by Patent owner (“AVS”) on June 26, 2014 (“Reply,” Paper 42). In
`particular, Toyota requests authorization to file a motion to strike and expunge the
`last sentence in the first paragraph of page 1, and the first paragraph on page 3 of
`the Reply.
`
`Discussion
`Toyota contends that the last sentence in the first paragraph of page 1 of
`
`AVS’s Reply effectively amends the claims and, therefore, is in violation of the
`Order entered June 26, 2014 (“Order,” Paper 41). The statement that Toyota
`identifies pertains to the amendment that already has been submitted. Toyota’s
`arguments go to the weight that should be given to AVS’s contention, which we
`can determine after reviewing the record in its entirety. We are capable of making
`this determination without being confused, misled, or prejudiced by this statement.
`
`Toyota additionally contends that the first paragraph on page 3 of the Reply
`addresses certain priority applications and, therefore, also is in violation of the
`Order (Paper 41). In that paragraph, AVS submits a contingent request to the
`Board regarding official notice. For the same reasons discussed above, we are not
`persuaded that this is a basis to strike or exclude this paragraph.
`Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Toyota’s requests for authorization to file a motion to strike
`
`and expunge is denied.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`A. Antony Pfeffer
`Matthew Berkowitz
`Thomas Makin
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`apfeffer@kenyon.com
`mberkowitz@kenyon.com
`tmakin@kenyon.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Wimbiscus
`Scott McBride
`Christopher Scharff
`Stephanie Samz
`McANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com
`ssamz@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`3