`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 36
`
` Entered: May 18, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`On May 14, 2015, a conference call was held between counsel for the
`respective parties and Judges Medley, Deshpande, and DeFranco. Patent
`Owner requested the call to discuss an issue that arose during the deposition
`of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Gregory Davis. Patent Owner requests
`authorization to retake the deposition of Dr. Davis, and Petitioner opposes.
`For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner’s request is denied.
`According to counsel for the respective parties, during the May 8,
`2015 deposition of Dr. Davis, a dispute arose concerning questioning Dr.
`Davis with respect to an exhibit, described by the parties as a marked-up
`copy of a manual, that is not asserted prior art in this proceeding (“Exhibit
`2013”1). The parties were unable to contact a Board member to assist them
`in the dispute, and as a result, the deposition continued and completed with
`respect to all questioning, with the exception of the dispute over whether Dr.
`Davis may be questioned about Exhibit 2013. Patent Owner requests
`authorization to retake Dr. Davis’ deposition with respect to Exhibit 2013,
`and Petitioner opposes.
`During the conference call, Patent Owner explained that Patent Owner
`sought to rely on Exhibit 2013 to question Dr. Davis’ credibility—to
`ascertain whether questioning regarding the exhibit would lead to
`inconsistencies with respect to Dr. Davis’ original testimony. When
`questioned during the conference call, Patent Owner did not provide a
`sufficient basis for questioning Dr. Davis’ credibility in the first place, or for
`questioning him at all with respect to Exhibit 2013 insofar as being relevant
`to the facts of this proceeding are concerned. Patent Owner’s proposed line
`of questioning, with respect to Exhibit 2013, seems to us to be akin to a
`
`1 Although not yet of record, the parties referred to the exhibit as Exhibit
`2013.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`“fishing expedition” and in conflict with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) which requires
`us to resolve this proceeding in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.
`Based on the facts of this proceeding, we determine that there is not
`sufficient reason to once again take the deposition of Dr. Davis, which
`would only add to the costs and complexities of the proceeding.
`Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s request to retake the deposition
`of Dr. Davis.
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to retake the deposition of
`Dr. Davis is denied.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`PETITIONER
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`John E. Nemazi
`John P. Rondini
`Erin K. Bowles
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0101IPR2@brookskushman.com
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`
`Kevin Greenleaf
`Lissi Mojica
`DENTONS US LLP
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`lissi.mojica@dentonscom
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`Ruffin Cordell
`Linda Kordziel
`Brian Livedalen
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`Riffe@fr.com
`Greene@fr.com
`IPR36351-0011IP1@fr.com
`
`
`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
