`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC., TELLABS, INC.,
`ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., and SOURCE PHOTONICS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CIRREX SYSTEMS LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,404,953 to Wach et al.
`Issue Date: June 11, 2002
`Title: Optical Assembly with High Performance Filter
`
`_____________________
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2014-008151
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S PROPOSED SCHEDULE
`
`
`1 An identical paper is concurrently filed in IPR2015-00530.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (IPR2015-00530, Paper 3), the
`
`related conference held on February 12, 2015 and the Board’s Order of February
`
`13, 2015 (IPR2015-00530, Paper 6), Petitioner requests that the Board adopt the
`
`proposed schedule below, which extends the impending February 24, 2015
`
`deadline for the Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2014-00815 and provides a
`
`reasonably prompt deadline for the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in
`
`IPR2015-00530.
`
`Petitioner has attempted to reach agreement with the Patent Owner as to the
`
`below proposed schedule, but has been unable to do so. Notwithstanding the
`
`recent expanded panel decision overturning Target and holding that a petitioner
`
`may join its own petition, the Patent Owner still intends to oppose joinder. Target
`
`Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR 2014-00508, Paper 28 (Feb. 12, 2015).
`
`The Patent Owner further stated that it will not file its Preliminary Response in
`
`IPR2015-00530 until April 29, 2015 and intends to proceed to file its Response in
`
`IPR2014-00815 next week on February 24, 2015.
`
`The Patent Owner’s planned course of action would be improperly
`
`prejudicial to Petitioner. Delaying the Preliminary Response until the end of April
`
`would be prejudicial because a Board cannot rule on a motion for joinder until
`
`after a Patent Owner files its Preliminary Response, or until the period of time for
`
`doing so has passed. 35 U.S.C. § 315 (c). The result of such delay would
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`potentially make joinder impractical due to progress of the proceedings in
`
`IPR2014-00815 under the current schedule. As such, Petitioner proposes a
`
`reasonably accelerated deadline for the Preliminary Response in IPR2015-00530
`
`that is in accordance with the prior practice of the Board. See, e.g., Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., LTD. v. Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. IPR2014-00557, Paper
`
`9, 2-3 (April 24, 2014) (setting preliminary response deadline for seven weeks
`
`after petition filed); ABB, Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00286, Paper 11, 2
`
`(June 10, 2013) (six weeks); Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Development Co.,
`
`IPR2013-00327, Paper 7, 2 (July 10, 2013) (six weeks); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation LTD., IPR2013-00250, Paper 7, 4 (May 1, 2013) (eight weeks). Here,
`
`the proposed February 27 deadline provides the Patent Owner with almost eight
`
`weeks from the filing of Petitioner’s second Petition (IPR2015-00530). The
`
`proposal below is even more reasonable given that the Patent Owner has not been
`
`filing short, generic and non-substantive preliminary responses. See, IPR2014-
`
`00815, Paper 7; see also IPR2014-01077, Paper 5; and IPR2014-01191, Paper 5.
`
`The filing of the Patent Owner’s Response next week in IPR2014-00830
`
`would also be prejudicial to the extent that, if joinder is granted, the Board prefers
`
`to have a single, consolidated Response in both proceedings.
`
`Thus, the Proposal below offers a consolidated schedule for IPR2014-00815
`
`and IPR2015-00530. Due Date 1 (otherwise due next week) in IPR2014-00815 is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`extended such that, if joinder is granted, the schedules are smoothly integrated. In
`
`addition, Petitioner has shortened Due Date 2—Petitioner’s time to Reply to the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response—by a month. The amount of time between Due Dates 2
`
`through 7 is preserved. As such, the proposal does not significantly disturb the
`
`existing schedule. To provide a concrete example, if the Board were to issue its
`
`institution decision on March 17th, then Due Date 7 would fall on September 9,
`
`2015, just three weeks beyond the current schedule.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board adopt the
`
`proposed, consolidated schedule for IPR2014-00815 and IPR2015-00530,
`
`appearing on the following page:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Due Date
`
`Current Schedule
`
`Proposed Consolidated
`Schedule
`(IPR2015-00530 and
`IPR2014-00815)
`No change
`
`Feb. 27, 2015
`
`April 29, 2015
`
`Feb. 27, 2015
`
`March 6, 2015
`
`No Change
`
`PO’s Opp. to Motion for
`Joinder in IPR2015-00530
`PO’s Prelim. Resp. in
`IPR2015-00530
`Petitioner’s Reply to Opp.
`to Motion for Joinder in
`IPR2015-00530
`Board’s Institution Decision
`in IPR2015-00530
`Due Date 1
`
`Convenience of the
`Board
`Feb. 24, 2015
`
`Due Date 2
`
`May 19, 2015
`
`Due Date 3
`
`June 16, 2015
`
`Due Date 4
`
`July 7, 2015
`
`Due Date 5
`
`July 21, 2015
`
`Due Date 6
`
`July 28, 2015
`
`Due Date 7
`
`Aug. 19, 2015
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No Change
`
`Decision
`+ 4 weeks
`Due Date 1
`+ 8 weeks
`Due Date 2
`+ 4 weeks
`Due Date 3
`+ 3 weeks
`Due Date 4
`+ 2 weeks
`Due Date 5
`+ 1 week
`Due Date 6
`+ 22 Days
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 18, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /John M. Baird/
`D. Joseph English, Reg. No. 42,514
`John M. Baird, Reg. No. 57,585
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 18th day
`
`of February, 2015, a complete and accurate copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Proposed Schedule was provided via e-mail to the Patent Owner’s Counsel of
`
`Record upon his consent of electronic service as follows:
`
`TAREK N. FAHMI
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`CIRREX SYSTEMS, LLC
`c/o ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`84 W. Santa Clara St Suite 550
`San Jose, CA 95113
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`
`/John M. Baird/
`
`D. Joseph English, Reg. No. 42,514
`John M. Baird, Reg. No. 57,585
`505 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`P: (202) 776-7800
`F: (202) 776-7801
`DJEnglish@duanemorris.com
`JMBaird@duanemorris.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
