`Date: August 15, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEROY G. HAGENBUCH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00638
`Patent 8,014,917
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`Order
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.05
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00638
`Patent 8,014,917
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`A telephone conference was held on August 13, 2014. The participants were
`
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Kim, and Plenzler. Patent
`Owner initiated the call to request that the oral argument for Case IPR2013-00483,
`scheduled for August 27, 2014, be postponed so that it can be held jointly with the
`oral argument for this proceeding, scheduled for November 20, 2014. During the
`conference call, counsel for Patent Owner suggested that the oral argument date for
`this proceeding be moved earlier, to some date after August 27, 2014, to serve as a
`consolidated oral argument date for Case IPR2013-00483 and this proceeding.
`The two proceedings involve the same parties, same patent, and same counsel.
`There also is substantial overlap between the applied prior art. The challenged
`claims, however, are different. Counsel for Patent Owner states that substantial
`efficiency may be had for conducting one oral argument instead of two.
`
`Alternatively, counsel for Patent Owner requested permission to file a
`Motion for Joinder with regard to this proceeding and Case IPR2013-00483, under
`35 U.S.C. § 315 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122.
`Discussion
`In a concurrent paper in Case IPR2013-00483, we have denied Patent
`
`Owner’s request to postpone the oral argument date of that proceeding to after
`August 27, 2014. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s request to move the oral argument
`date of this proceeding earlier is moot. Counsel for Patent Owner recognized,
`during the conference call, that the circumstances of this case do not permit oral
`argument on August 27, 2014.
`
`Patent Owner’s request for permission to file a Motion for Joinder to join
`this proceeding with Case IPR2013-00483 is denied for three reasons. First, per
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), such a request must be made within one month of the date
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00638
`Patent 8,014,917
`
`
`of institution of review. In this instance, Patent Owner made the request in the
`fifth month after institution of review; counsel for Patent Owner also did not set
`forth any good reason why permission to file a Motion for Joinder was not
`requested earlier in a timely manner. Second, the two proceedings are
`substantially apart in terms of their respective progress; a joinder cannot be made
`without substantially altering the schedule of Case IPR2013-00483. Third, the two
`proceedings involve different claims.
`
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the date of oral argument for this proceeding remains
`
`unchanged, as November 20, 2014; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is not authorized to file a Motion
`for Joinder with regard to this proceeding and IPR2013-00483.
`
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`Robert C. Mattson
`John S. Kern
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`cpdocketkern@oblon.com
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`John B. Conklin
`jconklin@leydig.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
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
