Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 10 Paper No. 41
`
`571-272-7822
`Entered: August 28, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00567
`Case IPR2014-005411
`Case IPR2013-005682
`Patent 8,217,902
`____________
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and RICHARD E. RICE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 IPR2014-00541 has been joined with IPR2013-00567. See IPR2013-00567,
`Paper 23.
`
` 2
`
` This Order addresses matters pertaining to all identified proceedings. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of IPR2013-00567
`and IPR2013-00568. The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for
`any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`Entered: August 28, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00567
`Case IPR2014-005411
`Case IPR2013-005682
`Patent 8,217,902
`____________
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and RICHARD E. RICE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 IPR2014-00541 has been joined with IPR2013-00567. See IPR2013-00567,
`Paper 23.
`
` 2
`
` This Order addresses matters pertaining to all identified proceedings. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of IPR2013-00567
`and IPR2013-00568. The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for
`any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00567 (IPR2014-00541); IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Introduction
`
`
`
`On August 27, 2014, a phone call was held between respective counsel for
`
`the parties and judges Scheiner, Cocks, and Rice. Petitioner, Wintek Corporation
`
`(“Wintek”), had requested the call to discuss an issue concerning the deposition of
`
`a witness, Mr. Ted Tsai, who has been relied upon by Patent Owner, TPK Touch
`
`Solutions (“TPK”), as a part of its briefings in this proceeding. Counsel for
`
`Wintek represented that a court reporter was present on the call.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`
`
`During the call, Wintek explained to the panel that its counsel had arrived in
`
`California to cross-examine Mr. Tsai in a scheduled deposition only to discover
`
`that an interpreter was necessary for the deposition. Wintek represented that at no
`
`time prior to its counsel’s arrival at the deposition had TPK conveyed to Wintek
`
`that an interpreter was necessary for Mr. Tsai, and that it was not apparent from
`
`any portion of the record in this proceeding that an interpreter was necessary.
`
`Indeed, in reviewing the declaration testimony of Mr. Tsai submitted by TPK (Ex.
`
`2017), we observe that it is presented in English, and there is no indication that Mr.
`
`Tsai was not proficient in English in giving the testimony. Wintek explained that,
`
`although TPK had an interpreter available for the deposition, Wintek desired to
`
`have its own check interpreter present also. Given the time constraints in obtaining
`
`a suitable check interpreter for the deposition scheduled for August 27, 2014,
`
`Wintek indicated that it had requested that the deposition be rescheduled for some
`
`time in September, but that TPK had represented that Mr. Tsai is not available at
`
`any time in September for a deposition within the United States.
`
`
`
`TPK indicated to the panel that it had neglected to inform Wintek of the
`
`necessity of an interpreter for Mr. Tsai, and that TPK was “at fault” in failing to do
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00567 (IPR2014-00541); IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`so. TPK expressed that it had attempted to obtain an additional interpreter for use
`
`by Wintek at the deposition. Wintek conveyed to the panel that such an
`
`arrangement was not satisfactory, and that it desired adequate time and opportunity
`
`to select its own interpreter for a deposition at a later date.
`
`
`
`The panel questioned TPK as to when Mr. Tsai could be made available for
`
`a rescheduled deposition. After conferring with Mr. Tsai, TPK stated that Mr. Tsai
`
`was not available in the near future for the deposition to be taken in the United
`
`States, but may have time for the deposition to be taken in Taiwan during the
`
`month of September. The parties agreed to continue discussing that possibility
`
`between themselves. The parties are encouraged to work together to reach
`
`agreement. Wintek further queried the panel as to the possiblity of recouping
`
`incurred costs from TPK in connection with the discountined deposition on August
`
`27, and any subsequent costs of a later scheduled deposition. The panel indicated
`
`that, should the parties be unable to reach agreement in that regard, Wintek is
`
`authorized to file a motion seeking recuperation of costs ultimately necessary to
`
`conduct Mr. Tsai’s depositon.
`
` It is
`
`3. Order
`
`ORDERED that the parties should attempt to reach agreement as to the time
`
`and place for the deposition of Mr. Tsai;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Wintek is authorized to file a motion seeking
`
`recuperation of costs ultimately necessary to conduct Mr. Tsai’s depositon, should
`
`the parties be unable to reach agreement in that regard; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Wintek should file, as its next available exhibit,
`
`a transcript of the involved conference call when the transcript becomes available.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00567 (IPR2014-00541); IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`David Bilsker
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
