`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: September 23, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC1,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00450 (Patent 7,921,356 B2)
`Case IPR2014-00452 (Patent 6,323,853 B1)2
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Google Inc. is the sole Petitioner in IPR2014-00450. Google Inc. and
`Motorola Mobility LLC are joint Petitioners in IPR2014-00452.
`2 This Order addresses issues pertaining to both cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00450 (Patent 7,921,356 B2)
`IPR2014-00452 (Patent 6,323,853 B1)
`
`An initial conference call in the above proceeding was held on
`September 17, 2014, between respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, and Judges Zecher, Powell, and Cherry. The purpose of the call was
`to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order (Paper 113), as
`well as any motions that the parties intend to file. Prior to the call, Patent
`Owner filed notices (one in each case) listing motions Patent Owner intends
`to file. Paper 13.4 Petitioner did not file a list of proposed motions in either
`case. The following issues were discussed.
`1.
`Schedule
`We inquired whether the parties had any issues with the Scheduling
`
`Order. Patent Owner requested that DUE DATE 7, the date for oral
`argument (if requested by either party), be moved from April 15, 2015, to
`the following week to avoid certain scheduling issues for Patent Owner.
`Petitioner stated that it had no objection. We advised the parties we would
`investigate the possibility of changing the due date. In this case, given the
`early timing of Patent Owner’s request, Board resources permit changing
`DUE DATE 7 to Tuesday, April 21, 2014. This change is reflected in the
`Revised Scheduling Order entered concurrently with this Order. The parties
`also are advised that they may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1
`through 5 in the Revised Scheduling Order (provided the dates are no later
`than DUE DATE 6) and, if they do so, the parties shall file promptly a notice
`of the stipulation.
`
`
`3 The Scheduling Order is Paper 11 in both IPR2014-00450 and IPR2014-
`00452.
`4 Patent Owner’s notices listing motions it intends to file are Paper 13 in both
`IPR2014-00450 and IPR2014-00452.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00450 (Patent 7,921,356 B2)
`IPR2014-00452 (Patent 6,323,853 B1)
`
`2. Motions
`In Paper 13 filed in each case, Patent Owner stated an intention to
`seek authorization to file a motion to exclude evidence. As discussed during
`the call, the Scheduling Order authorized filing motions to exclude evidence.
`The Revised Scheduling Order contains the same authorization.
`In IPR2014-00452, Patent Owner additionally stated, in Paper 13, an
`intention to seek authorization to file a contingent motion to amend. During
`the call, we indicated that Patent Owner may file a contingent motion to
`amend, but only after conferring with the Board. The motion to amend must
`explain in detail how any proposed substitute claim obviates the grounds of
`unpatentability authorized in this proceeding, and clearly identify where the
`corresponding written description support in the original disclosure can be
`found for each claim added. If the motion to amend includes a proposed
`substitution of claims beyond a one-for-one substitution, the motion must
`explain why more than a one-for-one substitution of claims is necessary.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121. For further guidance regarding these requirements, we
`direct Patent Owner to two decisions available on the Board’s website under
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices”: (1) IPR2012-00005, Paper
`27 (June 3, 2013); and (2) IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013).
`ORDER
`It is ORDERED that DUE DATE 7, the date for oral argument (if
`requested by either party), is reset to April 21, 2015.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00450 (Patent 7,921,356 B2)
`IPR2014-00452 (Patent 6,323,853 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Matthew A. Smith
`Zhuanjia Gu
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`gu@turnerboyd.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Robert M. Asher
`Bruce D. Sunstein
`SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`bsunstein@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`4