`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
` Entered: April 9, 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.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the above-listed cases. Although we issue one order
`to be docketed in each case, the parties are not authorized to use this caption for
`any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`
`On April 8, 2015, the initial conference call was held between counsel for
`the respective parties and Judges Medley and Deshpande.
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that Patent Owner has served
`Petitioner an objection to Ex. 11072 (“Takaoka”) within ten business days of the
`Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Dec.”) inter partes review, and in response,
`Petitioner has served supplemental evidence pertaining to Patent Owner’s
`objection to Patent Owner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). Petitioner now requests
`authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.123(a) in the form of a declaration from a librarian regarding the publication
`date of Takaoka, as suggested in the Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Dec.”). See
`Dec. 9 n. 7. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request to file supplemental
`information because 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) only requires that the supplemental
`information be served and does not permit Petitioner to file the supplemental
`information. We have taken Petitioner and Patent Owner’s arguments under
`advisement and authorized (1) Petitioner to file a motion to file supplemental
`information, with the supplemental information itself, not to exceed three pages in
`length and due no later than April 15, 2015, and (2) Patent Owner to file an
`opposition to Petitioner’s motion, not to exceed three pages in length, and due no
`later than April 22, 2015.
`Petitioner further requests authorization to increase the page limit of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to twenty-five pages, consistent
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all citations are to IPR2014-01415.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`with United States Patent & Trademark Office Director Michelle K. Lee’s blog.3
`Petitioner submits this request for IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-
`00579, IPR2014-00875, IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01415, and
`IPR2014-01416. Patent Owner opposes the increase to the page limit because
`Patent Owner indicates that the large number of inter partes reviews requested by
`Petitioner and the large number of pages in each of these proceedings creates a
`special circumstance and Director Lee’s changes to the page limits for the
`Petitioner’s Reply should not apply because of this special circumstance. Patent
`Owner further requests a five page Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply because Patent
`Owner’s Response was due before the changes were announced by Director Lee.
`We authorize Petitioner’s request to increase the page limit to twenty-five
`pages because the increase of the Petitioner’s reply to twenty-five pages is
`consistent with Director Lee’s blog. We do not find any rule, new or old, to
`authorize Patent Owner’s request for a Sur-Reply, and, therefore, we deny Patent
`Owner’s request to file a five page Sur-Reply.
`We further remind the parties that, if they seek authorization to file a motion
`not contemplated per the Scheduling Order, the party requesting such authorization
`must arrange for a conference call with us and opposing counsel.
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to file supplemental information is granted;
`
`3 http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to file supplemental information
`is to not exceed three pages in length and is due no later than April 15, 2015.
`FURTHER ORDERED Patent Owner is authorized to file an opposition to
`Petitioner’s motion to file supplemental information.
`FURTHER ORDERED Patent Owner’s opposition is to not exceed three
`pages in length and is due no later than April 22, 2015.
`FURTHER ORDERED the page limit to Petitioner’s Reply is increased to
`25 pages for IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00579, IPR2014-00875,
`IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01415, and IPR2014-01416.
`FURTHER ORDERED Patent Owner’s request to file a five page Sur-Reply
`in IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, and IPR2014-00579 is denied.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`Frank A. Angileri
`Michael D. Cushion
`Andrew B. Turner
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0110IPR2@brookskushman.com
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`John E. Nemazi
`John P. Rondini
`Erin K. Bowles
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0104IPR3@brookskushman.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`DENTONS US LLP
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`riffe@fr.com
`IPR36351-0012IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`5