`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: August 29, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., MACRONIX ASIA
`LIMITED, MACRONIX (HONG KONG) CO., LTD., and
`MACRONIX AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SPANSION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00898
`Patent 7,151,027 B1
`
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00898
`Patent 7,151,027 B1
`
`
`An initial conference call in the above proceeding was held on August
`28, 2014, among respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and
`Judges Stephens, Arbes, and Rice. The purpose of the call was to discuss
`any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order (Paper 14) and any motions
`the parties intend to file. Prior to the call, Patent Owner filed a list of
`proposed motions (Paper 16). The following issues were discussed during
`the call.
`
`
`Schedule
`The parties indicated that they had no issues with the due dates in the
`Scheduling Order at this time, although Patent Owner noted the compressed
`nature of the schedule in view of related Case IPR2014-00108. The parties
`are reminded that they may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1
`through 5 in the Scheduling Order (provided the dates are no later than DUE
`DATE 6) and, if they do so, the parties shall file promptly a notice of the
`stipulation. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on a scheduling matter,
`the parties may request a conference call.
`
`Motion to Seal
`Patent Owner stated that it may file a motion to seal at some point in
`the instant proceeding. The parties are directed to the requirements of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54 and the instructions for filing documents in the Patent
`Review Processing System (PRPS) on the Board’s website at
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp. If a party believes there is a
`need to file certain information under seal at some point in this proceeding,
`the party may file a motion to seal containing a proposed protective order.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00898
`Patent 7,151,027 B1
`
`The proposed protective order may be a copy of the Board’s default
`protective order. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,771 (Aug. 14, 2012). If not, the party’s motion should identify
`specifically how the proposed protective order differs from the Board’s
`default protective order, explain why every change is warranted, and include
`with the motion a separate redlined version of the proposed protective order
`showing the differences. The parties also are reminded that they must confer
`with each other before filing any motion to seal. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a).
`
`
`Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner stated that it had not determined yet whether it intends
`to file a motion to amend. If Patent Owner decides to file a motion to
`amend, Patent Owner must request a conference call and confer with the
`Board before doing so. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). The parties are referred
`to Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 7–8
`(PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (informative), and Toyota Motor Corp. v.
`American Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-00419, slip op. at 4–5 (PTAB
`Mar. 7, 2014) (Paper 32), for guidance regarding the requirements for
`motions to amend.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00898
`Patent 7,151,027 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Andrew R. Sommer
`WINSTON & STRAWN
`mmurray@winston.com
`asommer@winston.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.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
