`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: September 19, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CROCS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLLIWALKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00423
`Patent 8,371,043 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, RICHARD E. RICE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00423
`Patent 8,371,043
`
`
`1. Introduction
`
`On September 19, 2014, an initial conference call was conducted between
`
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Cocks, Rice, and Daniels. The
`
`purpose of the call was to determine if the parties have any issues concerning the
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper 9), and to discuss any motions contemplated by the
`
`parties.
`
`2. Scheduling Order
`
`Neither party indicated any issues with the Scheduling Order. The parties
`
`are reminded that, without obtaining prior authorization from the Board, they may
`
`stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1–51 by filing an appropriate notice
`
`with the Board.
`
`3. Protective Order
`
`The parties have not discussed a protective order at this time. No protective
`
`order has been entered. Should circumstances change, the parties are reminded of
`
`the requirement for a protective order when filing a Motion to Seal. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.54. If the parties have agreed to a proposed protective order, including the
`
`Standing Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide , 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug 14, 2012), they should file a signed copy of the
`
`proposed protective order with the motion to seal. If the parties choose to propose
`
`a protective order other than or departing from the default Standing Protective
`
`Order, they must submit a joint, proposed protective order, accompanied by a red-
`
`lined version based on the default protective order in Appendix B to the Board’s
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. See id. at 48,769.
`
`
`1 The parties may not stipulate to changes for any other DUE DATE.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00423
`Patent 8,371,043
`
`
`4. Discovery
`
`The parties are reminded of the discovery provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51–
`
`52 and Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761–62.
`
`Discovery requests and objections are not to be filed with the Board without prior
`
`authorization. The parties may request a conference with the Board if the parties
`
`are unable to resolve discovery issues between them. A motion to exclude, which
`
`does not require Board authorization, must be filed to preserve any objection.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 37.64, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767.
`
`There are no discovery issues pending at this time.
`
`Each party may depose experts and affiants supporting the opposing party.
`
`The parties are reminded of the provisions for taking testimony found at 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.53 and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide at 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,772,
`
`App. D.
`
`5. Motions
`
`The parties are reminded that, except as otherwise provided in the Rules,
`
`Board authorization is required before filing a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). A
`
`party seeking to file a motion should request a conference to obtain authorization
`
`to file the motion. Both parties filed a list of proposed motions (Papers 11 and 12).
`
`During the call, both parties represented that the proposed motions listed were
`
`essentially “placeholders” for motions that the parties ultimately may seek to file,
`
`rather than motions that are contemplated actively. The panel advised the parties
`
`that such “placeholders” for motions that parties may seek to file at a later time are
`
`not necessary. As noted above, when a party desires to file a motion, it should
`
`obtain authorization from the panel to file such motion, with the exception of
`
`motions for which prior authorization is not practical (see Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide at 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,762).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00423
`Patent 8,371,043
`
`
`No additional motions are authorized in this proceeding at this time.
`
`6. Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`Although Patent Owner may file one motion to amend the patent by
`
`cancelling or substituting claims without Board authorization, Patent Owner must
`
`confer with the Board before filing a motion to amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42. 121(a).
`
`During the call, Patent Owner indicated that it may file a motion to amend, but was
`
`not yet prepared to discuss such a motion with the panel. Should Patent Owner
`
`intend to file such a motion, it should arrange a conference call with the panel and
`
`opposing counsel at least one week before DUE DATE 1 in order to satisfy the
`
`conferral requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`
`7. Settlement
`
`The parties stated that there is no immediate prospect of settlement that will
`
`affect the conduct of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00423
`Patent 8,371,043
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jennifer Sklenar
`Alissa H. Faris
`Arnold & Porter LLP
`jennifer.sklenar@aporter.com
`alissa.faris@aporter.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stephen Y. Chow
`Joseph M. Maraia
`Hsuanyeh Chang, PhD
`Burns & Levinson LLP
`schow@burnslev.com
`jmaraia@burnslev.com
`hchang@burnslev.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`