`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: September 2, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-00390 (Patent 6,754,594 B2)
`IPR2014-00392 (Patent 8,000,906 B2)
` IPR2014-00393 (Patent 7,571,062 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in all three cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00390 (Patent 6,754,594 B2)
`IPR2014-00392 (Patent 8,000,906 B2)
`IPR2014-00393 (Patent 7,571,062 B2)
`An initial conference call for the above-identified proceedings was
`held on August 26, 2014, between respective counsel for Petitioner and
`Patent Owner, and Judges Saindon, Zecher, and Meyer. The purpose of the
`call was to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order (Paper
`17),2 as well as any motions that the parties intend to file. Patent Owner
`(Paper 18) and Petitioner (Paper 19) each filed a list of proposed motions.
`The following issues were discussed.
`1. Scheduling Order
`Petitioner noted in its list of proposed motions that the parties may
`
`stipulate to changes to Due Dates 1–5. Paper 19, 1. Petitioner suggested
`that the parties may request adjustment to Due Date 6 as well. Id. During
`the call, we indicated that the parties could stipulate changes to Due Dates
`1–5, but that we were not inclined to move Due Date 6, unless there was a
`compelling circumstance.
`
`Petitioner asked for clarification as to whether Due Date 4 of the
`Scheduling Order authorizes Petitioner, as well as Patent Owner, to file a
`motion for observation on cross-examination and a motion to exclude
`evidence (Due Date 4). We confirmed that the Scheduling Order does
`provide prior authorization for both parties to file these motions, and their
`associated oppositions (Due Date 5) and replies (Due Date 6).
`
`The parties did not indicate any issue with Due Date 7 (oral hearing).
`
`
`2 Citations in this paper are to IPR2014-00390. The other proceedings will
`have analogous papers.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00390 (Patent 6,754,594 B2)
`IPR2014-00392 (Patent 8,000,906 B2)
`IPR2014-00393 (Patent 7,571,062 B2)
`2. Proposed Motions
`Petitioner did not propose any motions. Paper 19, 2.
`Patent Owner listed several motions in its list of proposed motions,
`but indicated during the call that, although it is considering a Motion to
`Amend, the remainder of the list is merely a placeholder for motions it may
`seek authorization to file at a later stage. See Paper 18, 1. We did not
`discuss further these placeholders during the call.
`Regarding the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner recognized its
`requirement to confer with us prior to filing the motion. Patent Owner
`noted, however, that the parties and this panel recently conferered (August 8,
`2014) to discuss this very topic in related cases IPR2014-00167, 170, 178,
`and 179. See, e.g., Micro Motion, Inc., v. Invensys Systems, Inc., Case
`IPR2014-00167 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2014), Paper 24. Patent Owner asked if
`the guidance it received at that time could be considered sufficient to satisfy
`its requirement to confer with us prior to filing a Motion to Amend in these
`cases. We agreed to consider the requirement to confer in these cases to be
`satisfied, under these particular circumstances. A repeat of our prior
`conversation would be unnecessary and would not promote efficiency and
`economy in these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (“[Trial practice and
`procedure] shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution of every proceeding.”). Patent Owner may request a conference
`call to discuss the Motion to Amend should the circumstances change.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00390 (Patent 6,754,594 B2)
`IPR2014-00392 (Patent 8,000,906 B2)
`IPR2014-00393 (Patent 7,571,062 B2)
`ORDER
`It is hereby ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requirement to confer
`
`with us prior to filing a Motion to Amend has been satisfied in these three
`proceedings.
`
`4
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Andrew S. Baluch
`Jeffrey N. Costakos
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`WASH-Abaluch-PTAB@foley.com
`abaluch@foley.com
`jcostakos@foley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`James M. Heintz
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`jeffrey.johnson@dlapiper.com
`Invensys_Micro_IPR@dlapiper.com