`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 4
`
`
`Date: March 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TARGET CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00508 (RE43,563)
`Case IPR2014-00509 (RE43,531)
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00508 (RE43,563)
`Case IPR2014-00509 (RE43,531)
`
`On March 20, 2014, a telephone conference call was held between
`
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Bisk, Fitzpatrick, and Weatherly. The
`
`conference call was initiated by the Board in response to a communication
`
`received from the Patent Owner’s counsel.
`
`In these cases, Petitioner has filed motions to join IPR2014-00508 and
`
`IPR2014-00509 with IPR2013-000530/ IPR2013-00531 and IPR2013-
`
`000532/IPR2013-00533, respectively. Patent Owner seeks permission to file an
`
`opposition to these joinder motions. Petitioner does not oppose the request, but
`
`also requests a reply. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s request for a
`
`reply. During the call we discussed the timing of the requested briefing. We
`
`explained that because the petitions in these cases contain many newly asserted
`
`grounds and references, it would be unfair to limit the time afforded Patent Owner
`
`in preparing its preliminary response. Therefore, we were not inclined to expedite
`
`the timing of any briefing to the joinder motions, which are not even relevant
`
`unless the petitions are granted. During the call, we did not rule on whether we
`
`would authorize either an opposition or a reply in support of the motions for
`
`joinder. After deliberation, we have decided that we will authorize Patent Owner
`
`to file an opposition, due concurrently with the preliminary response. At this time,
`
`however, we do not authorize a reply.
`
`We further discussed, on the issue of timing, the potential effect on the
`
`existing schedule, should these proceedings be joined, as requested. Under these
`
`circumstances, we will give Petitioner an opportunity, in the form of a motion, to
`
`limit the petitions to a subset of claims and grounds to reduce Patent Owner’s
`
`burden in responding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00508 (RE43,563)
`Case IPR2014-00509 (RE43,531)
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a motion in each
`
`proceeding to limit the respective petition to a subset of the grounds and claims
`
`therein;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file such motions no later
`
`than March 27, 2014 and that they shall be limited to 5 pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no oppositions to these motions by Patent
`
`Owner are authorized;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s opposition to each
`
`motion for joinder shall be due on the same date as its preliminary response to the
`
`respective petition. No reply by Petitioner is authorized.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00508 (RE43,563)
`Case IPR2014-00509 (RE43,531)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Norman Hedges
`Norman.hedges@faegrebd.com
`
`Trevor Carter
`Trevor.carter@faegrebd.com
`
`Daniel Lechleiter
`Daniel.lechleiter@faegrebd.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`IP Group of DLA Piper, LLC
`One Liberty Place
`1650 Market Street
`Suite 4900
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`Paul A. Taufer
`Paul.taufer@dlapiper.com
`
`Michael.Burns
`Michael.burns@dlapiper.com
`
`
`4