`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`
`
`
` Entered: January 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`IRON DOME LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE and GREGG I. ANDERSON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`On January 16, 2015, we issued an Order giving Patent Owner until January
`
`22, 2015, to provide its witness, Mr. Winston Ninh, for cross-examination by
`
`Petitioner, stating that pursuant to a conference call held on January 15, 2015,
`
`counsel for Patent Owner agreed that if Mr. Winston Ninh is not made available by
`
`January 22, 2015, then the declaration of Winston Ninh will not be considered by
`
`the Board. Paper 31. On January 20, 2015, counsel for Patent Owner requested a
`
`telephone conference call. The request for a conference call suggested that Patent
`
`Owner did not “agree” that the declaration of Mr. Ninh will not be considered
`
`should Mr. Ninh not be made available for cross-examination by January 22, 2015.
`
`
`
`A telephone conference call was held on January 20, 2015. The participants
`
`were respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee and Anderson. During the
`
`conference call, counsel for Patent Owner, Robert Curfiss, stated he no longer
`
`contends that he does not “agree” with the conditions for use of the declaration of
`
`Mr. Ninh but, instead, indicated that we misunderstood the request for a conference
`
`call. Mr. Curfiss requested that Patent Owner be allowed until January 27, 2015,
`
`to provide Mr. Ninh for cross-examination. Mr. Curfiss acknowledged and agreed
`
`that if, by January 27, 2015, the witness is not made available for cross-
`
`examination by Petitioner, then the declaration of Mr. Ninh will not be considered
`
`by the Board. Counsel for Petitioner agreed to the postponement of the deadline
`
`for making Mr. Ninh available for cross-examination, from January 22, 2015, to
`
`January 27, 2015, with the understanding that if the witness is not made available
`
`for cross-examination by January 27, 2015, then the declaration of Mr. Ninh will
`
`not be considered by the board. We approved the proposal of counsel for Patent
`
`Owner, and agreed to by counsel for Petitioner.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the deadline for Patent Owner’s providing Mr. Ninh for
`
`cross-examination is extended from January 22, 2015, to January 27, 2015, and
`
`that if Patent Owner is unable to abide by this extended deadline, then Mr. Ninh’s
`
`declaration (Exhibit 2015) will not be considered by the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Steven Yu
`ROZMED LLC
`syu@patent-intercept.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`David O. Simmons
`bob@curfiss.com
`dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`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
