UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`Patent 6,451,300
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO ADJUST THE SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`Patent 6,451,300
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO ADJUST THE SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) and Petitioner
`
`Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever (“Unilever”) jointly move the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“the Board”) to adjust the scheduling order as provided below.
`
`
`
`On February 12, 2014, the Board entered a Scheduling Order in this
`
`proceeding. (Paper 11.)
`
`
`
`On March 12, 2014, Unilever filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review and a
`
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2014-00507.
`
`
`
`On April 10, 2014, the Board held a conference call with the parties to
`
`discuss, inter alia, scheduling of the two proceedings. During the conference call,
`
`the Board suggested that the parties agree to a joint proposed schedule.
`
`
`
`On April 21, 2014, the Board held another conference call with the parties.
`
`The parties informed the Board that they had reached an agreement on the joint
`
`proposed schedule below.
`
`
`
`The proposed schedule promotes efficiency and the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of the proceedings by allowing for a single deposition,
`
`rather than multiple depositions, of witnesses. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Ltd., Case IPR2012-00022, Paper 39, Order Conduct of the Proceeding,
`
`at 2 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2013). The proposed schedule further promotes efficiency
`
`because, should the Board institute trial in IPR2014-00507 and join that trial with
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`
`this one, the parties will file only one set of briefs, rather than two. Likewise, in
`
`that circumstance, the Board will only need to issue one final decision.
`
`
`
`In addition, the proposed date for Due Date 7 is only six weeks beyond that
`
`previously set forth in the original Scheduling Order. Such an extension would
`
`allow for a final written decision within one year from institution should the Board
`
`not institute trial in IPR2014-00507, or should the Board not join the proceedings.
`
`See id.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Board grant the
`
`parties’ joint motion and enter the proposed schedule below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder…………TBD with Board input
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion for Joinder……TBD with Board input
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response for IPR2014-00507………June 20, 2014
`
` May 26, 2014
`
`Decision on Institution of Trial for IPR2014-00507...Date convenient for the Board
`
`Approx. Week of June 30, 2014
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 1 .................................................................................. May 12, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`
`
`
`
`August 19, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 2 .............................................................................. August 12, 2014
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner response to petition October 20, 2014
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 3 .......................................................................... September 12, 2014
`
`
`
` November 5, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................................October 3, 2014
`
`Petitioner’s motion for observation regarding
`
` November 26, 2014
`
`cross-examination of reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 5 ...............................................................................October 17, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s response to observation
`
`
`
` December 3, 2014
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 6 ..............................................................................October 24, 2014
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`
` December 10, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 7 ........................................................................... November 7, 2014
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` December 19, 2014
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`John V. Biernacki (Reg. No. 40,511)
`Michael S. Weinstein (Reg. No. 62,446)
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`Tel: (216) 586-3939 / Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`Steven W. Miller (Reg. No. 31,984)
`Kim W. Zerby (Reg. No. 32,323)
`Carl J. Roof (Reg. No. 37,708)
`Angela K. Haughey (Reg. No. 56,373)
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`299 E. Sixth Street; Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`Tel: (513) 983-1100 / Fax: (513) 945-2729
`
`Attorneys For Patent Owner
`The Procter & Gamble Company
`
`6
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`
`April 22, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on April 22,
`
`2014, a copy of the foregoing Joint Motion To Adjust The Scheduling Order, was
`
`served by electronic mail (per the parties’ agreement), on the following counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner:
`
`Eldora L. Ellison, Esq.
`eellison-PTAB@skgf.com
`Robert G. Sterne, Esq.
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana
`Registration No. 41,449
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`The Procter & Gamble Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
