`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 21
`Date: February 4, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2013-00424
`Patent 5,845,000
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`Order
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.05
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00424
`Patent 5,845,000
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 3, 2014, an initial telephone conference call was held between
`
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Jefferson, and Parvis. Both
`
`parties filed a list of proposed motions. Paper 19 (Patent Owner’s list); Paper 20
`
`(Petitioner’s list).
`
`Discussion
`
`
`
`The sole item listed on Petitioner’s list of proposed motions is a motion to
`
`extend the deadline for submitting supplemental evidence, under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2), in response to Patent Owner’s objection to Petitioner’s evidence.
`
`However, counsel for both parties indicate jointly that they have resolved the issue
`
`by agreeing that such supplemental evidence will be due on February 18, 2014.
`
`The Board approves of that agreement by the parties. Therefore, it is not necessary
`
`for Petitioner to file a motion for such extension.
`
`
`
`The parties indicated that they have stipulated to different Due Dates 1-3.
`
`The Board instructed that the stipulation be filed. However, none of the stipulated
`
`Due Dates 1-3 should extend beyond the original Due Date 4, July 10, 2014.
`
`
`
`Item 1 on Patent Owner’s list of proposed motions pertains to a proposed
`
`motion for modification of Due Dates 1-3 in the Scheduling Order dated
`
`January 14, 2014 (Paper 17). The proposed motion is moot in light of the parties’
`
`agreement to different stipulated Due Dates 1-3.
`
`
`
`Item 2 on Patent Owner’s list pertains to a proposed motion for additional
`
`discovery. Based on discussions in the conference call, it is evident that that
`
`proposed motion is premature at this time. Counsel for Patent Owner will contact
`
`the Board at an appropriate time when he has more specifics with regard to the
`
`material Patent Owner seeks to discover. The parties should note IPR2012-00001
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00424
`Patent 5,845,000
`
`
`(Paper 20) with regard to the factors applicable for determining appropriateness of
`
`
`
`additional discovery.
`
`
`
`Item 3 on Patent Owner’s list pertains to a potential motion to exclude
`
`evidence. The matter is premature. The Board also noted that a party does not
`
`need prior authorization from the Board to file a motion to exclude evidence.
`
`Motions to exclude evidence are provided for in the Scheduling Order. Also, the
`
`Board advised counsel for both parties that the motion to exclude evidence is not
`
`provided as a vehicle via which to contend that any argument or evidence in
`
`support of a reply exceeds the proper scope of a reply. Accordingly, neither party
`
`is authorized to include in a motion to exclude evidence an assertion that a reply
`
`argument or evidence in support of a reply exceeds the proper scope of a reply.
`
`
`
`Item 4 on Patent Owner’s list pertains to a potential motion to amend claims.
`
`Based on discussions in the conference call, this matter is premature, as Patent
`
`Owner does not yet know in what way it would seek to amend claims. In any
`
`event, Patent Owner does not need authorization from the Board to file a first
`
`motion to amend claims. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(a), however, Patent Owner is
`
`required to confer with the Board prior to filing such an amendment. In that
`
`connection, because the discussion is premature, this conference call does not
`
`satisfy the requirement “to confer” under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(a).
`
`
`
`Item 5 on Patent Owner’s list pertains to a potential motion to substitute
`
`Lead and/or Back-Up Counsel. The Board explained that a party may re-designate
`
`lead or back-up counsel without need of a formal motion, subject, however, to the
`
`requirements that (1) lead counsel must be a registered practitioner, and (2) a non-
`
`registered practitioner may not be designated as counsel unless a motion for pro
`
`hac vice admission of the non-registered practitioner has been granted. Note
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00424
`Patent 5,845,000
`
`
`further that counsel may not withdraw from this proceeding unless the Board has
`
`
`
`authorized the withdrawal. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e).
`
`
`
`Finally, counsel for Patent Owner indicated that he would like to withdraw
`
`the objections which note that Petitioner’s evidence is deficient on the merits on
`
`substantive issues. The Board approved and granted the withdrawal of such
`
`objections. Given that the noted objections are withdrawn, counsel for Petitioner
`
`agreed not to submit supplemental evidence which add to the substantive merit of
`
`the evidence relied on in the petition.
`
`Order
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the sole item on Petitioner’s list of proposed motions is
`
`dismissed as moot, and that the due date with regard to Petitioner’s supplemental
`
`evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) is reset to February 18, 2014;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all of the items on Patent Owner’s list of
`
`proposed motions are dismissed as moot, premature, or unnecessary; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner should initiate a conference call
`
`with the Board to “confer” about a motion to amend claims at least one week prior
`
`to the filing of the motion to amend claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00424
`Patent 5,845,000
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`A. Antony Pfeffer
`apfeffer@kenyon.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Thomas Wimbiscus
`Scott McBride
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`5
`
`
`