`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
`
` Entered: July 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`MATCH.COM LLC, and PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-000381
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`On July 3, 2014, a conference call was held between counsel for the
`
`respective parties and Judge Medley. The purpose of the call was for Patent
`
`Owner to meet its requirement that it confer prior to filing a motion to
`
`amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00699 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner indicated that Patent Owner intends to file a
`
`contingent motion to amend in this proceeding, as well as in IPR2014-
`
`00039, -00052, and -00053. Specifically, Patent Owner proposes to
`
`substitute an independent claim 23 for independent claim 11.2 Patent Owner
`
`further seeks to present substitute dependent claims for each involved
`
`dependent claim for the sole purpose of ensuring dependency from the
`
`proposed substitute claim 23. As understood, each dependent claim would
`
`not be altered in any way from the original dependent claim it replaces,
`
`besides being renumbered to depend from proposed substitute claim 23.
`
`Guidance was provided to Patent Owner regarding motions to amend,
`
`including directing attention to the following orders: Nichia Corporation v.
`
`Emcore Corporation, Case IPR2012-00005, Paper 27 (June 3, 2013); Idle
`
`Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (June 11,
`
`2013); and Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. The United States of America,
`
`IPR2013-00124, Paper 12 (May 20, 2014).
`
`Patent Owner also is directed to ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`v. Contentguard Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00136, Paper 33 (November 7,
`
`2013), which, at pages 3-4, explains the scenario of substituting dependent
`
`claims for the sole purpose of changing the dependency from the proposed
`
`substitute claim. Those claims would need to be listed and included in
`
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Counsel for Patent Owner indicated that the same substitute claim 23 will
`be presented in each motion to amend in each of IPR2014-00038, -00039, -
`00052, and -00053.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`