`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Date: December 20, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, and NETAPP, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00635
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00635
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`
`A conference call in the above proceeding was held on December 19, 2013,
`
`
`
`between respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and Judges
`
`McNamara, Quinn, and Anderson. Patent Owner sought the conference to request
`
`an extension to the deadline for its Preliminary Response to the Petition to Institute
`
`Inter Partes Review. The Preliminary Response is due January 2, 2014. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner requested an extension of time until February 22, 2014, to
`
`coincide with the due date of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response in a related
`
`petition for inter partes review, Case IPR2014-00152 (the “152 case”). According
`
`to Patent Owner, the Petition in the 152 case seeks inter partes review of the same
`
`patent as the present case and was filed by the same Petitioners. Patent Owner
`
`argued it wanted extra time to develop the redundancy of the prior art in the related
`
`proceeding and that there would be efficiencies by having the preliminary
`
`responses due on the same date. For instance, Patent Owner argued that the
`
`extension of time in the present case could result in the two related proceedings
`
`having the same schedule.
`
`Petitioner opposed Patent Owner’s request. In support of its opposition,
`
`Petitioner argued that the asserted grounds in the 152 case rely on different prior
`
`art than in the present case, and that there is no overlap of grounds on which inter
`
`partes review is sought.
`
`The Board explained that because the asserted grounds and prior art differ
`
`between the two proceedings, an extension of Patent Owner’s deadline to file the
`
`Preliminary Response is not warranted at this time. Further, whether there could
`
`be a common schedule in the 152 case and the present case is speculative as the
`
`Board has not determined whether trial will be instituted in either case.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00635
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`It is
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for an extension to file the
`
`Preliminary Response is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to file the Preliminary Response in
`
`this case remains January 2, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00635
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`
`FOR PETITONERS:
`
`David McCombs
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Thomas W. Kelton
`Thomas.kelton.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`John Russell Emerson
`Russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Matthew Phillips
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`Derek Meeker
`Derek.meeker@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`Alexander C.D. Giza
`agiza@raklaw.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
