Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: March 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00593
`Patent 8,045,952
`Case IPR2013-00594
`Patent 8,050,652
`Case IPR2013-00597
`Patent 8,230,099
`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,8731
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`1 This Order addresses scheduling that is identical in the listed cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue a single paper to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: March 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00593
`Patent 8,045,952
`Case IPR2013-00594
`Patent 8,050,652
`Case IPR2013-00597
`Patent 8,230,099
`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,8731
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`1 This Order addresses scheduling that is identical in the listed cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue a single paper to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00593; -00594;-00597;-00598
`Patent 8,045,952; 8,050,652; 8,230,099; 8,214,873
`
`A. DUE DATES
`
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action in this trial. The
`parties may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1 through 3 (earlier
`or later, but no later than DUE DATE 4). 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.
`
`In stipulating to different times, the parties should consider the effect
`of the stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)),
`to supplement evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-
`examination (37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the
`evidence and cross-examination testimony (see Section B).
`
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to
`the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14,
`2012) (Appendix D), apply to this trial. The Board may impose an
`appropriate sanction for failure to adhere to the Testimony Guidelines. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.12. For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees
`incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or
`frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
`
`1. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file—
`
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by
`DUE DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent
`owner must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board. The
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00593; -00594;-00597;-00598
`Patent 8,045,952; 8,050,652; 8,230,099; 8,214,873
`
`patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised and
`fully briefed in the response will be deemed waived.
`
`2. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and
`opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`
`3. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to
`the patent owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`4. DUE DATE 4
`a. The petitioner must file any motion for an observation on the cross-
`examination testimony of a reply witness (see Section C) by DUE DATE 4.
`b. Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`
` 5. DUE DATE 5
`a. The patent owner must file any reply to a petitioner observation on
`cross-examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`b. Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude evidence
`by DUE DATE 5.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00593; -00594;-00597;-00598
`Patent 8,045,952; 8,050,652; 8,230,099; 8,214,873
`
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`7. DUE DATE 7
`
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7.
`
`B. CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1. Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is due.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`2. Cross-examination ends no later than a week before the filing date
`for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to be
`used. Id.
`
`C. MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`A motion for observation on cross-examination provides the petitioner
`with a mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-
`examination testimony of a reply witness, since no further substantive paper
`is permitted after the reply. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The observation must be a concise
`statement of the relevance of precisely identified testimony to a precisely
`identified argument or portion of an exhibit. Each observation should not
`exceed a single, short paragraph. The patent owner may respond to the
`observation. Any response must be equally concise and specific.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00593; -00594;-00597;-00598
`Patent 8,045,952; 8,050,652; 8,230,099; 8,214,873
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`DUE DATE 1 ........................................................................... May 22, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................ July 22, 2014
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner response to petition
`
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ....................................................................... August 22, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner opposition to motion to amend
`DUE DATE 4 ................................................................. September 12, 2014
`Petitioner’s motion for observation regarding cross-examination of
`reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................. September 26, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`DUE DATE 6 ....................................................................... October 3, 2014
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ..................................................................... October 21, 2014
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00593; -00594;-00597;-00598
`Patent 8,045,952; 8,050,652; 8,230,099; 8,214,873
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. Fehrman
`Mehran Arjomand
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`dfehrman@mofo.com
`marjomand@mofo.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Engellenner
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`engellennert@pepperlaw.com
`mollaaghababar@pepperlaw.com
`
`Theodosios Thomas
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`ted.thomas@sceneralabs.com
`
`
`
`
`
`6
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
