`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 17
`
`Entered: November 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580 and IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,733 B21
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issue in both above-identified inter partes reviews.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in both cases.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580 and IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,733 B2
`
`
`On October 10, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review in each of the
`above-identified proceedings to review the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,733 B2
`(“the ’733 patent). Paper 11.2 For efficiency, we entered a single Scheduling
`Order that sets forth the due dates for the parties to take action in both reviews,
`ensuring that the reviews will be completed within one year of institution.
`Paper 12. An initial conference call was held on November 10, 2014, between
`respective counsel for the parties for the above-identified reviews and Judges
`Turner, Chang, and Mitchell. The purpose of the call was to discuss any proposed
`changes to the Scheduling Order (Paper 12), as well as any motions that the parties
`intend to file. Neither party filed a proposed motion list.
`
`Trial Schedule
`
`During the conference call, we explained that the trial schedule for the
`above-identified reviews had been synchronized. The Scheduling Order provides
`certain flexibility for the parties to change Due Dates 1 through 5. Paper 12, 2.
`Should the parties believe that there is a good reason for changing other due dates,
`they may contact the Board to set up a conference call with us. The parties
`indicated that they do not, at this time, foresee any problems with meeting their
`due dates. If the parties decide to stipulate to different due dates, the parties should
`file promptly a notice of stipulation that includes a copy of the due date appendix
`
`
`2 For the purpose of clarity and expediency, we treat IPR2014-00580 as
`representative, and all citations are to IPR2014-00580 unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580 and IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,733 B2
`
`of the Scheduling Order, showing the new due dates next to the original due dates.
`Paper 12, 2, 6.
`We further noted that the oral hearings for both reviews are scheduled on the
`same day. We explained that the oral hearings will be merged and conducted at
`the same time, and the transcript from the combined oral hearing could be useable
`across both reviews, given the similarity in claimed subject matter and overlapping
`asserted prior art.
`
`The Procedure for Consolidated Discovery
`
`The parties indicated that they have been engaging in discussions regarding
`the discovery schedule. Given the similarity in claimed subject matter and
`overlapping asserted prior art and that Petitioner submitted declarations from the
`same expert witness in each review, the parties further expressed the desire to
`coordinate and combine discovery between both proceedings, and, possibly, with
`other proceedings that involve the parties, but different patents. We observed that
`such coordination and consolidation may be helpful in streamlining the
`proceedings, and reduce the cost and burden on the parties. For example, cross-
`examination of Petitioners’ expert witness may be combined and useable in both
`reviews, for efficiency and consistency. Should the parties combine discovery of
`the above-identified reviews, which involve the ’733 patent, with other
`proceedings that involve another patent, the parties are encouraged to keep the
`record clear as to each proceeding and each patent.
`During the conference call, we also notified the parties that the decisions on
`the Petitions and Motions for Joinder filed by Taiwan Semiconductor
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580 and IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,733 B2
`
`Manufacturing Company, Ltd., TSMC North America Corp., Fujitsu
`Semiconductor Limited, and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. in IPR2014-
`01479 and IPR2014-01481, seeking to join with the above-identified proceedings,
`will be forthcoming. The parties indicated that they will consolidate the discovery
`of those proceedings as well, should we decide to institute those proceedings and
`grant the Motions for Joinder.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the parties are authorized to consolidate discovery for both
`above-identified inter partes reviews, so that the cross-examination and redirect
`examination may be usable in the reviews.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580 and IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,733 B2
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Michael A. Diener
`michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`Larissa B. Park
`larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`Andrej Barbic
`andrej.barbic@wilmerhale.com
`
`5
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
