`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: July 29, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., AND
`MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TROY R. NORRED, M.D.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`The initial conference call for this case was held on July 28, 2014.
`Neither party filed a list of proposed motions. The following matters were
`discussed during the call.
`
`A. Scheduling Order
`Neither party expressed concerns about the schedule or proposed
`changes.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`B. Related Cases
`The parties indicated that the related litigation in the U.S. District
`Court for the District of Kansas is stayed pending the outcome of this
`proceeding and the related proceedings in IPR2014-00110 and IPR2014-
`00111. We reminded the parties to advise the Board of any changes in the
`status of the litigation and to notify the Board of any new proceedings
`involving the patent at issue in this proceeding.
`
`C. Proposed Motions
`We advised the parties that reserving the right to seek authorization
`for filing motions is unnecessary. Rather, the parties may seek authorization
`for motions as needs arise.
`
`D. Discovery
`The parties represented that currently no discovery disputes exist. We
`advised the parties to seek guidance from us should any disputes arise but
`that the parties should focus efforts on cooperating with each other to
`generate as full a record as possible to enable a decision on the merits.
`
`E. Protective Order
`We reminded the parties that a protective order does not exist in a
`case until one is filed in the case and is approved by the Board. If a motion
`to seal is filed by either party, the proposed protective order should be
`presented as an exhibit to the motion. We encourage the parties to adopt the
`Board’s default protective order if they conclude that a protective order is
`necessary. See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties choose to
`propose a protective order deviating from the default protective order, they
`must submit the proposed protective order jointly along with a marked-up
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`comparison of the proposed and default protective orders showing the
`differences.
`We emphasized that redactions to documents filed in this proceeding
`should be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting entirely of
`confidential information, and that the thrust of the underlying argument or
`evidence must be clearly discernible from the redacted versions. We also
`reminded the parties that information subject to a protective order will
`become public if identified in a final written decision in this proceeding, and
`that a motion to expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over
`the public interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history.
`See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761.
`
`F. Motions to Amend
`Patent Owner indicated it is considering filing a motion to amend.
`We reminded Patent Owner that the sufficiency of motions to amend may be
`adjudged according to the principles set forth in Idle Free Systems, Inc. v.
`Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027 (Paper 26). We also reminded Petitioner
`that it may come forth with new evidence to meet the substance of any
`substitute claim that Patent Owner proposes in a motion to amend.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jack Barufka
`Evan Finkel
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`jack.barufka@pillsburylaw.com
`evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James J. Kernell
`ERICKSON KERNELL DERUSSEAU & KLEYPAS, LLC
`jjk@kcpatentlaw.com
`
`David L. Marcus
`BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
`dmarcus@bmlawkc.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
