`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`
`
` Entered: September 18, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00634
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00634
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`
`On September 17, 2014, an initial conference call was held. The
`participants were respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee, Parvis,
`and Anderson. Only Petitioner filed a list of proposed motions. Paper 11.
`During the conference call, counsel for the parties indicated that the parties
`do not have a need to change Due Date 6 or Due Date 7 as set in the
`Scheduling Order dated August 26, 2014 (Paper 9), but will stipulate to
`different Due Date 1–5 as is authorized in the Scheduling Order.
`Petitioner’s list of proposed motions identifies a single item, i.e.,
`authorization for filing a Motion for Additional Discovery of deposition
`transcripts and other testimony from “other IPR proceedings involving
`related patents owned by American Vehicular Sciences (‘AVS’).” The
`request is overbroad for several reasons. First, counsel for Petitioner
`explained, during the conference call, that “related patents” means all of
`Patent Owner’s patents now involved in an inter partes review proceeding;
`that position fails to consider the substantive content of each patent. Second,
`counsel for Petitioner acknowledged that he has no reason to think that such
`material would be favorable in substantive content to any of Petitioner’s
`contentions. Third, there are other sources for the requested material, such
`as the Petitioner in the other proceedings. In response to our noting that the
`request is overbroad, counsel for Petitioner withdrew the sole request
`identified in its list of proposed motions.
`Petitioner’s list of proposed motions also states: “Honda reserves its
`right pursuant to 77 Fed. Reg. 48765 to seek authorization from the Board to
`file additional motions as appropriate.” Paper 11, 2. We explained to the
`parties that if a party has the right to take certain action, it need not make a
`reservation for that right, and that if a party does not have the right to take
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00634
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`certain action, none would be created by reservation. We noted that such
`reservations of right are not helpful and tend only to add cost and confusion
`to the proceeding by requiring specific attention of the opposing party and
`the Board to check if anything meaningful is embedded in the assertion.
`Counsel for Petitioner agreed to refrain from attempting to “reserve” rights.
`
`We advised counsel for each party that a proper Motion to Exclude
`Evidence should not include arguments alleging that a reply exceeds the
`scope of a proper reply. If such an issue arises, the parties should initiate a
`telephone conference call to the Board.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that all due dates set in the Scheduling Order dated
`August 26, 2014 (Paper 9), remain unchanged as a result of the initial
`conference call on September 17, 2014;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the page limit for a Motion for
`Observation Regarding Cross-Examination of Reply Witness is set to 7
`pages; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties contact each other to initiate
`settlement discussion, within ten days of the date of this Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2014-00634
`Patent 6,738,697 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Melnik
`Joseph Beauchamp
`H. Albert Liou
`jmelnik@jonesday.com
`jbeauchamp@jonesday.com
`aliou@jonesday.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher Scharff
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com
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
