`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`Date: March 20, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TARGET CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00532
`Case IPR2013-00533
`Patent RE43,531 E
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00532
`Case IPR2013-00533
`Patent RE43,531 E
`
`On March 13, 2014, an initial conference call was held among counsel for
`
`Petitioner, Target Corporation, counsel for Patent Owner, Destination Maternity
`
`Corporation, and Judges Bisk, Fitzpatrick, and Weatherly.
`
`
`
`Both parties filed lists of proposed motions in each proceeding prior to the
`
`call. See IPR2013-00532 Papers 13, 14; IPR2013-00533 Papers 14, 15.
`
`I. Motion to Amend
`
`Patent Owner indicated that it may file a motion to amend. Patent Owner is
`
`reminded that, unlike a challenge of a patented claim, where the burden is on the
`
`petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability, in a motion to amend, the burden is on
`
`the patent owner to demonstrate patentability. During the call, we directed the
`
`parties to the discussion in Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc. for the
`
`requirements of a motion to amend claims. See Decision—Motion to Amend
`
`Claims, IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (―Idle Free‖). Patent Owner should review that
`
`discussion prior to filing a motion to amend.
`
`Although a patent owner is authorized by statute to file one motion to amend
`
`during an inter partes review, see 35 U.S.C. § 316(d), it first must confer with the
`
`Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Patent Owner has met its obligation to confer.
`
`II. Motions to Seal and for Protective Order
`
`Both parties list possible motions to seal and for a protective order. The
`
`Board does not enter a protective order automatically. The parties were advised
`
`that, if the need does arise for a protective order, the parties should first confer,
`
`prepare a joint stipulated protective order, and seek authorization to file a motion
`
`for entry of the proposed order, which motion should indicate clearly what, if
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00532
`Case IPR2013-00533
`Patent RE43,531 E
`
`anything, is different between the proposed order and the model protective order
`
`set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,771
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`III. Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Both parties indicated they may file a motion to exclude evidence. The
`
`deadline for doing so is DUE DATE 4, currently September 2, 2014. IPR2013-
`
`00532 Paper 11 (―Scheduling Order‖), 5.1
`
`IV. Motion to Modify Schedule
`
`Patent Owner indicated it may seek to file a ―motion for observation on the
`
`dates set forth in the scheduling order,‖ but indicated that it did not have any
`
`problem with the due dates set forth in the scheduling order. We remind the
`
`parties that they may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1–3 (earlier or
`
`later, but no later than DUE DATE 4). See Scheduling Order 2. A notice of the
`
`stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly filed.
`
`The parties may not stipulate to an extension of DUE DATES 4–7. See id.
`
`V. Motions to Consolidate
`
`Petitioner indicated that it may seek to file a motion to consolidate IPR2013-
`
`00532 with IPR2013-00533, because both cases involve the same patent and the
`
`same parties. Patent Owner presently objects to consolidation, at least in part,
`
`because Patent Owner would be limited to filing a single Patent Owner Response.
`
`
`
`1 IPR2013-00533 Paper 12.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00532
`Case IPR2013-00533
`Patent RE43,531 E
`
`Also, Petitioner indicated that it would file imminently a petition for a third
`
`inter partes review of the same patent along with a motion for joinder under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Such a request for joinder will be considered only if trial is
`
`instituted. Further, we informed the parties that, due to scheduling constraints, it
`
`may be impractical to consolidate a third proceeding filed more than six months
`
`after the first two.
`
`VI.
`
` Motions for Discovery
`
`Although both parties list motions for discovery and/or additional discovery
`
`in their proposed motions lists, during the call, they indicated that no discovery
`
`dispute currently exists, and they are not contemplating such motions at this time.
`
`VII. Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`Patent Owner indicated that it may want to file observations on cross-
`
`examination of a Petitioner reply witness. We advised Patent Owner to seek
`
`authorization at the appropriate time (i.e.., promptly after Petitioner’s reply is filed)
`
`and if circumstances support the request (i.e., if Petitioner submits declaration
`
`testimony in its reply).
`
`VIII. Requests for Oral Hearing
`
`Both parties indicated they may file a paper requesting oral argument. The
`
`deadline for doing so is DUE DATE 4, currently September 2, 2014. Scheduling
`
`Order 5.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00532
`Case IPR2013-00533
`Patent RE43,531 E
`
`IX. Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`
`Petitioner indicated it may seek to file a motion to submit supplemental
`
`information such as deposition transcripts and exhibits from a related lawsuit. The
`
`Board advised that, before seeking to do so, it should consider whether such
`
`documents, to the extent they are relevant, could be submitted as exhibits to a
`
`paper (e.g., Petitioner’s reply, which is currently due by July 14, 2014).
`
`Also, pursuant to a prior order,2 two deposition transcripts from the related
`
`lawsuit have already been filed. However, they will be expunged as they are
`
`labeled Exhibits 1 and 2. Either party is authorized to re-file the exhibits, as
`
`properly labeled. Thus, Petitioner may file them using the applicable numbers
`
`from the 1000 series, and Patent owner may file them using the applicable numbers
`
`from the 2000 series. Alternatively, the parties may agree to file them using
`
`Exhibit 3001 and Exhibit 3002. Because no paper currently refers to those
`
`exhibits, however, the parties may also choose not to re-file those exhibits at this
`
`time.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Exhibits 1 and 2 are expunged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 IPR2013-00532 Paper 9; IPR2013-00533 Paper 10.
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case IPR2013-00532
`Case IPR2013-00533
`Patent RE43,531 E
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Norman Hedges
`norman.hedges@faegrebd.com
`
`Trevor Carter
`trevor.carter@faegrebd.com
`
`Daniel Lechleiter
`daniel.lechleiter@faegrebd.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Paul Taufer
`paul.taufer@dlapiper.com
`
`Michael Burns
`michael.burns@dlapiper.com
`
`Stuart Pollack
`stuart.pollack@dlapiper.com