`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
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
