`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 14
`
` Entered: May 9, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00031 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`
`IPR2014-00033 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`
`IPR2014-00038 (Patent 6,628,314 B1)
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LYNNE E.
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00031 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`IPR2014-00033 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`IPR2014-00038 (Patent 6,628,314 B1)
`
`
`On May 6, 2014, the initial conference call1 was held between counsel for
`
`the respective parties and Judges Medley, Deshpande, and Pettigrew.
`
`
`
`Motions
`
`Neither party seeks authorization to file a motion at this time. As explained,
`
`if Patent Owner determines that it will file a motion to amend, Patent Owner must
`
`arrange a conference call soon thereafter with the Board and opposing counsel to
`
`discuss the proposed motion to amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`
`The parties were reminded that if they seek authorization to file a motion not
`
`contemplated per the Scheduling Order, the party requesting such authorization
`
`must arrange a conference call with opposing counsel and the Board.
`
`Patent Owner has indicated the possibility of seeking authorization to file a
`
`motion for the consolidation of four of the inter partes reviews for the ʼ290 patent,
`
`including IPR2014-00031, and has contacted the respective Petitioners to begin
`
`discussions. Patent Owner was reminded that if it seeks authorization to file a
`
`motion to consolidate, Patent Owner must arrange a conference call with opposing
`
`counsel and the Board sooner rather than later.
`
`
`
`Schedule
`
`Counsel for the respective parties indicated that they have no issues with the
`
`
`1 The initial conference call is held to discuss the Scheduling Order and any
`motions that the parties anticipate filing during the trial. Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00031 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`IPR2014-00033 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`IPR2014-00038 (Patent 6,628,314 B1)
`
`Scheduling Order entered April 9, 2014. Petitioner indicated that Stephen Gray,
`
`who offered testimony in support of the petitions, has limited availability for cross-
`
`examination and will work with Patent Owner on scheduling accordingly.
`
`To the extent issues arise with DATES 1-3, the parties are reminded that,
`
`without obtaining prior authorization from the Board, they may stipulate to
`
`different dates for DATES 1-3, as provided in the Scheduling Order, by filing an
`
`appropriate notice with the Board. The parties may not stipulate to any other
`
`changes to the Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`Order
`
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00031 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`IPR2014-00033 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`IPR2014-00038 (Patent 6,628,314 B1)
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Clinton H. Brannon
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`cbrannon@mayerbrown.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`