throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 10 Paper No. 14
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket