`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 19
`
`
`
` Entered: August 27, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871
`
`Introduction
`On August 26, 2014, an initial telephone conference call was held. The
`
`participants were respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Anderson, and
`Clements. Only Petitioner filed a proposed motions list (Paper 18). Counsel for
`Patent Owner indicated that its expert witness is not accessible until mid-
`September, but that no extension of Due Date 6 or 7 as set in the Scheduling Order
`of August 4, 2014 (Paper 17) would be required. Counsel for Petitioner and Patent
`Owner agreed to cooperate to permit short extensions of Due Dates 1–5, if
`necessary, by stipulation, as is authorized by the Scheduling Order. Other than the
`preceding, neither party expressed any objection to the dates set forth in the
`Scheduling Order.
`
`Discussion
`The only item on Petitioner’s proposed motions list is directed to additional
`
`discovery. Specifically, Petitioner seeks to obtain information on Patent Owner’s
`conception, diligence, and reduction to practice of the invention of each challenged
`claim, in connection with any effort by the Patent Owner to antedate prior art
`references which form the basis of an alleged ground of unpatentability which has
`been instituted for trial. We explained that Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`is not evidence or carried automatically over into the trial and that Patent Owner
`has not yet filed a Patent Owner Response subsequent to the institution of trial.
`Therefore, a reference to Patent Owner’s attempt to antedate prior art is premature.
`
`We indicated also that if and when Patent Owner submits declaration
`evidence as a part of the Patent Owner Response, to antedate prior art, Petitioner
`will be able, as a part of routine discovery, to cross-examine the declarants and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00439
`Patent 7,365,871
`
`obtain copies of documents relied on in the declaration(s). We confirmed that
`subsequent to institution of trial, Patent Owner has an opportunity, by way of the
`Patent Owner Response, to antedate the prior art, regardless of what was presented
`in connection with the Preliminary Response. In light of that discussion, counsel
`for Petitioner withdrew the request for authorization to file a motion for additional
`discovery.
`
`We advised counsel for both parties that a Motion to Exclude Evidence
`should not be used to present issues on whether a Reply or evidence in support of a
`Reply exceeds the proper scope of a Reply. Instead, if an issue arises regarding the
`proper scope of a Reply, the parties should initiate a joint conference call with the
`Board to discuss the matter.
`
`Order
`It is ORDERED that Due Dates 1–7 as set forth in Paper 17 remain
`unchanged.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
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
