Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`Entered: May 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569 B2)
`IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300 B1)1
`____________
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in both cases. We exercise our
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however, are not
`authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569 B2)
`IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300 B1)
`
`The parties filed a Joint Motion to Adjust the Scheduling Order on April 22,
`
`2014. IPR2013-00505, Paper 18; IPR2013-00509, Paper, 19. According to the
`motion, 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.” Id. at 2. Moreover, the parties
`contend that “the proposed date for Due Date 7 is only six weeks beyond that
`previously set forth in the original Scheduling Order,” which, the parties argue,
`“would allow for a final written decision within one year from institution should
`the Board not institute trial in [IPR2014-00506 or IPR2014-00507], or should the
`Board not join the proceedings.” Id. at 3.
`
`The original Scheduling Orders set DUE DATE 7 for November 7, 2014.
`IPR2013-00505, Paper 10; IPR2013-00509, Paper, 11. The schedule proposed by
`the parties moves DUE DATE 7 to December 19, 2014. These inter parties
`reviews were instituted on February 12, 2014, making the one year statutory due
`date for the final decision February 12, 2015. Thus, if we do not join IPR2013-
`00505 with IPR2014-00506, as well as also join IPR2013-00509 with IPR2014-
`00507, we would have less than 8 weeks to issue the final decision in both
`IPR2013-00505 and 2013-00509. In that regard, in our order of April 22, 2014, we
`cautioned the parties that we would “prefer not to move the hearing date seven and
`half weeks later than the current date of November 7, 2014, as proposed by Patent
`Owner.” IPR2013-00505, Paper 17 at 2-3; IPR2013-00509, Paper 18 at 2-3.
`
`We, therefore, decline to adjust the scheduling order at this time. In order to
`allow the parties to accommodate any possible joinder, however, we authorize the
`parties to stipulate to changes in DUE DATES 4 and 5 in addition to DUE DATES
`1, 2, and 3, with the proviso that if the parties desire to have an oral hearing, that
`the request be filed by original DUE DATE 4, that is, October 3, 2014.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569 B2)
`IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300 B1)
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED, that the parties’ joint motion to adjust the scheduling order in
`
`each of IPR2013-00505 and IPR2013-00509 is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED, that the parties are authorized to stipulate to
`changes in DUE DATES 4 and 5, with the proviso that, if the parties desire to have
`an oral hearing, the request be filed by original DUE DATE 4, that is, October 3,
`2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569 B2)
`IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300 B1)
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Eldora Ellison
`eellison@skgf.com
`
`Robert Sterne
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`David Maiorana
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`John Biernacki
`jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`
`Michael Weinstein
`msweinstein@jonesday.com
`
`Steven Miller
`miller.sw@pg.com
`
`Kim Zerby
`zerby.kw@pg.com
`
`Carl Roof
`roof.cj@pg.com
`
`Angela Haughey
`haughey.a@pg.com
`
`Calvin Griffith
`cpgriffith@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`