`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 23, IPR2014-00935
`Paper 25, IPR2014-00936
`Paper 28, IPR2014-00938
`Entered: January 14, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD., JIAWEI
`TECHNOLOGY (USA) LTD., SHENZHEN JIAWEI PHOTOVOLTAIC
`LIGHTING CO, LTD., ATICO INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD., ATICO
`INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., SMART SOLAR, INC., AND TEST RITE
`PRODUCTS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases
`IPR2014-00935 (Patent 8,089,370 B2)
`IPR2014-00936 (Patent 7,196,477 B2)
`IPR2014-00938 (Patent 7,429,827 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00935; IPR2014-00936; IPR2014-00938
`
`An initial conference in the subject proceedings was conducted on
`January 12, 2015. Petitioner was represented by Mark Nelson. Patent
`Owner was represented by Theodore Shiells. The following subjects were
`discussed during the conference.
`1. Scheduling Order
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner stated that they were aware of
`problems or conflicts with the Scheduling Order. Lead Counsels for
`Petitioner and for Patent Owner do not have any conflict with the date
`scheduled for oral argument, which is September 21, 2015.
`2. Motions
`Petitioner stated that it did not contemplate filing any motions in this
`proceeding. Petitioner stated, however, that it plans to file an additional
`petition and also to file a motion to join the new petition with Case
`IPR2014-00938.
`Patent Owner identified several potential motions that may be filed,
`including, but not limited to, a motion to amend, a motion to seal, and a
`motion to expunge.
`Although Board authorization is not required for Patent Owner to file
`one motion to amend the patent by cancelling or substituting claims, we
`remind Patent Owner of the requirement to request a conference with the
`Board before filing a motion to amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). The
`conference should take place at least two weeks before filing the motion to
`amend.
`Board authorization is required prior to filing a motion to expunge.
`3. Protective Order
`The parties were reminded that no protective order has been entered in
`this proceeding. A protective order does not exist in a case until one is filed
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00935; IPR2014-00936; IPR2014-00938
`
`in the case and is approved by the Board. If a motion to seal is filed by
`either party, the proposed protective order should be presented as an exhibit
`to the motion. The parties are urged to use the Board’s default protective
`order, should the need for a protective order become necessary. Office Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012). If a protective
`order other than or departing from the default protective order is proposed,
`the parties must submit the proposed protective order, accompanied by a
`red-lined version based on the default protective order in Appendix B.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Mark Nelson
`Lissi Mojica
`Keven Greenleaf
`Daniel Valenzuela
`Dimitry Kapmar
`DENTONS US LLP
`mark.nelson@dentons.com
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`keven.greenleaf@dentons.com
`daniel.valenzuela@dentons.com
`dimitry.kapmar@dentons.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Theodore Shiells
`SHIELLS LAW FIRM, P.C.
`tfshiells@shiellslaw.com
`
`Marcus Benavides
`THE LAW PRACTICE OF MARCUS BENAVIDES
`marchusb@tlpmb.com
`
`3
`
`
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
