`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 9, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC. and E-WATCH CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00989
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Order
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00989
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`
`On January 8, 2015, an initial conference call was held. The
`
`participants were Bing Ai and Cheng Ko for HTC Corporation and HTC
`
`America, Inc. (“Petitioner”), Robert Curfiss and David Simmons for e-
`
`Watch, Inc. and e-Watch Corporation (“Patent Owner”), and Judges Lee,
`
`Anderson, and Clements. The following matters were specifically discussed.
`
`1. Scheduling Order and Potential Joinder
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel advised us that “Samsung” has filed a petition
`
`for inter partes review of US Patent No. 7,643,168 and has moved to join
`
`that case, IPR2015-00543 (“’543 case”), with this case. Petitioner’s counsel
`
`indicated it would likely oppose joinder. If the cases are joined, Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel raised a concern about meeting the deadline for filing
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Due Date 1 in the Scheduling Order (Paper 7).
`
`At the present time, neither party has any changes to the Scheduling
`
`Order in this case. Should the ‘543 case be joined, we will consider whether
`
`the current Scheduling Order needs to be revised.
`
`2. Discovery
`
`No initial disclosures have been exchanged.
`
`Routine discovery was discussed. The parties are directed to the Trial
`
`Practice Guide Section F.1 as it relates to routine discovery. The parties
`
`were specifically advised that routine discovery requires production of
`
`relevant inconsistent information.
`
`3. Protective Order
`
`No protective order has been entered in these proceedings. If it is
`
`decided that a protective order is necessary, the parties are directed to the
`
`default Standing Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00989
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`4. Motions
`
`Petitioner filed a list of proposed motions. Some of the listed motions
`
`are preauthorized by rule and none reflect a motion currently being
`
`contemplated by Petitioner. Patent Owner did not have any motions for our
`
`consideration. No specific motions were discussed and none are authorized
`
`at this time.
`
`The parties were advised of the need to obtain authorization for the
`
`filing of motions. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). If the need for a motion arises, the
`
`party seeking to file the motion should arrange a call with the Board by
`
`email request to Trials@uspto.gov. Other information on contacting the
`
`Board is available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp.
`
`Patent Owner does not anticipate filing a motion to amend. Should
`
`Patent Owner decide to file a motion to amend, the Board should be
`
`contacted a week or two prior to filing to receive guidance from the Board
`
`for filing a motion to amend.
`
`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
`
`joint telephone conference call to the Board.
`
`5. Settlement
`
`The parties had nothing to report regarding settlement. Nonetheless,
`
`the parties were advised that if the Board can do anything to assist in
`
`settlement, the parties are encouraged to arrange a call for that purpose.
`
`Neither party had any further issues to present to the Board.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00989
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that all due dates set in the Scheduling Order dated
`
`December 9, 2014 (Paper 7) remain unchanged as a result of the initial
`
`conference call on January 8, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00989
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Bing Ai
`Cheng C. (Jack) Ko
`Kevin Patariu
`Babak Tehranchi
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`
`and
`
`David O. Simmons
`IVC Patent Agency
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`