`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: January 6, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INSPECTIONLOGIC CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LDARTOOLS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`
`
`On January 6, 2015, Judges Arpin, Powell, and Weinschenk held an
`
`initial conference with counsel for the parties. The following subjects were
`
`discussed during the conference.
`
`Scheduling Order
`
`Neither party raised an objection to the Scheduling Order. If the
`
`parties agree to change any of Due Dates 1 through 5 in the Scheduling
`
`Order, the stipulated dates cannot be later than Due Date 6, and the parties
`
`promptly must file a joint stipulation indicating such change.
`
`Motions
`
`Neither party currently anticipates filing any motions not authorized
`
`already by our Rules or the Scheduling Order. If Patent Owner decides to
`
`file a motion to amend, Patent Owner must schedule a call to confer with us
`
`prior to filing the motion. Patent Owner must conduct any such conference
`
`call at least two weeks prior to the due date, Due Date 1, for filing a motion
`
`to amend.
`
`Any motions that are not authorized already by our Rules or the
`
`Scheduling Order require specific authorization before filing. In that regard,
`
`prior to requesting a conference to seek authorization for a motion, the
`
`parties should consult first with each other and then, if a conference is
`
`necessary, the parties should suggest several dates and times for the desired
`
`conference.
`
`Protective Order
`
`Neither party contemplates that a protective order would be necessary,
`
`and a protective order has not been entered in this proceeding. If the parties
`
`later find the need for a protective order in this proceeding, the parties may
`
`agree to the default protective order in Appendix B of the Office Patent Trial
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,771 (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties
`
`wish to deviate from the default protective order, the parties must submit a
`
`redlined version of the default protective order that shows any such
`
`deviations and explain to us why such deviations are necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01008
`Patent 8,386,164 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John F. Salazar
`Brantley C. Shumaker
`Robert H. Eichenberger
`Robert J. Theuerkauf
`MIDDLETON REUTLINGER
`jfs@middletonlaw.com
`bcs@middletonlaw.com
`rhe@middletonlaw.com
`rjt@middletonlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Douglas H. Elliott
`Eric M. Adams
`THE ELLIOTT LAW FIRM
`doug@elliottiplaw.com
`eric@elliottiplaw.com
`sarah@elliottiplaw.com
`renea@elliottiplaw.com
`
`4
`
`