`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: July 1, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC. and ZIMMER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00191
`Patent 7,837,736 B2
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00191
`Patent 7,837,736 B2
`
`
`An initial conference call in the above proceeding was held on June
`30, 2014, between respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and
`Judges Saindon, Zecher, and Rice. Petitioner provided a court reporter and
`agreed to file a transcript of the call separately as an exhibit. The purpose of
`the call was to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order (Paper
`13), and any motions that the parties intend to file. Prior to the call,
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each filed a list of proposed motions. Papers 14
`and 15. The following issues were discussed.
`1. Scheduling Order
`The parties indicated that they have no issues with the current
`Scheduling Order. Petitioner, however, noted that it was in the process of
`filing another petition that requests an inter partes review of certain
`dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,837,736 B2, as well as a motion for
`joinder under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) that requests joinder of the new
`proceeding with this proceeding. Petitioner indicated that, once the new
`petition was accorded a filing date, it would confer with Patent Owner to see
`if there were certain efficiencies that could be achieved by shortening the
`time period to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Petitioner further
`indicated that, after conferring with Patent Owner, it may contact us to
`request a revision to the due dates established for the preliminary stages of
`the new proceeding. In response, Patent Owner indicated that it was not
`ready to discuss any revisions to due dates established for the preliminary
`stages of a proceeding that it was just made aware of and that had yet to be
`accorded a filing date. We indicated that, after a filing date was accorded to
`the new petition, and the parties had an opportunity to confer, the parties
`may schedule another conference call with us to discuss this matter further.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00191
`Patent 7,837,736 B2
`
`
`2. Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner indicated that it is still contemplating whether to file a
`
`motion to amend. Patent Owner also indicated that, although it was aware of
`the requirement to confer with us prior to filing a motion to amend under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a), it wasn’t clear whether it was still required to confer
`with us if its motion to amend only cancelled some of the challenged claims.
`We indicated that, even if Patent Owner decided to file a motion to amend
`that only cancels some of the challenged claims, Patent Owner still must
`confer with us prior to filing its motion to amend.
`3. Additional Considerations
`Except as provided otherwise, the parties are reminded to seek prior
`
`authorization from us before filing a motion in this proceeding. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.20(b).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00191
`Patent 7,837,736 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Walter C. Linder
`Daniel Lechleiter
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`Walter.Linder@FaegreBD.com
`Daniel.Lechleiter@FaegreBD.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Cary Kappel
`William Gehris
`Davidson, Davidson, & Kappel, LLC
`ckappel@ddkpatent.com
`wgehris@ddkpatent.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
