`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
` Entered: October 31, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2014-00570 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-00571 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`IPR2014-00579 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the above-listed cases. Although we issue
`
`one order to be docketed in each case, the parties are not authorized to use this
`caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00570 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-00571 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`IPR2014-00579 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`
`
`On October 30, 2014, the initial conference call was held between counsel
`for the respective parties and Judges Medley, Deshpande, and DeFranco.
`
`
`Motions
`Neither party seeks authorization to file a motion at this time. As discussed,
`if Patent Owner determines that it will file a motion to amend, Patent Owner must
`arrange for a conference call, preferably two weeks prior to filing the motion to
`amend, with us and opposing counsel to discuss the proposed motion to amend.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Additional guidance on motions to amend claims is
`provided in the Board’s Trial Practice Guide (see Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012)) and in relevant Board
`decisions, including Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-00005, Paper 27
`(PTAB Jun. 3, 2013), and Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-
`00027, Paper 26 (PTAB Jun. 11, 2013).
`We remind the parties that, if they seek authorization to file a motion not
`contemplated per the Scheduling Order, the party requesting such authorization
`must arrange for a conference call with us and opposing counsel.
`
`
`Schedule
`Patent Owner indicated it has proposed to Petitioner modifications for Due
`Dates 1 and 2 set forth in the Scheduling Order. Petitioner indicated it is
`considering Patent Owner’s proposal. To the extent issues arise with Due Dates 1-
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00570 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-00571 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`IPR2014-00579 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`
`5 identified in the Scheduling Order, we remind the parties that, without obtaining
`prior authorization from us, they may stipulate to different dates for Due Dates 1-5,
`but no later than Due Date 6, as provided in the Scheduling Order, by filing an
`appropriate notice with the Board. The parties may not stipulate to any other
`changes to the Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00570 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-00571 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`IPR2014-00579 (Patent 7,104,347 B2)
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`Frank A. Angileri
`Michael D. Cushion
`Andrew B. Turner
`John Nemazi
`John Rondini
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0110IPR1@brookskushman.com
`FPGP0101IPR2@brookskushman.com
`FPGP0101IPR3@brookskushman.com
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`DENTONS US LLP
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`Riffe@fr.com
`Greene@fr.com
`IPR36351-0013P1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`