`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
` Entered: May 6, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owners
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`
`An initial conference call in inter partes review IPR2013-00596 occurred
`
`on May 5, 2014. Respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and
`
`Judges Turner, Chang, and Zecher were in attendance. The purpose of the call
`
`was to discuss proposed changes to the Scheduling Order (Paper 10) and any
`
`motions that the parties intend to file. Petitioner filed a proposed motions list
`
`(Paper 12), but that list indicated that no motions were contemplated at this
`
`time.
`
`Patent Owner indicated that no motion to amend would be filed. The
`
`parties have not discussed a protective order for this proceeding, and the parties
`
`also indicated that no settlement discussions had occurred to the best of their
`
`knowledge. The parties also indicated that neither had initial disclosures, nor
`
`any additional discovery requests at this time.
`
`The parties are reminded that prior authorization is required for all
`
`motions filed with the Board. The Board directs the attention of the parties to
`
`Nichia Corporation v. Emcore Corporation, IPR2012-00005, Paper Nos. 27
`
`and 68; Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper Nos.
`
`26 and 66; and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Contentguard
`
`Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00136, Paper No. 33, which discuss the requirements
`
`of a motion to amend claims. If the Patent Owner should decide to file a
`
`motion to amend claims, it must initiate a conference call with the Board prior
`
`to such filing to confer about the intended motion
`
`Petitioner also raised the issue of a Request for Rehearing (Paper 11), and
`
`inquired about grounds that may form part of the trial based on that Request.
`
`We indicated that we would proceed as if the Request had been denied until
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`
`such time as it was granted, and that the ground of the instant trial is specified
`
`in the Decision on Institution (Paper 9).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Mark W. Rygiel
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`mrygiel-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Updeep S. Gill
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.com
`
`
`4