`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 27, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NHK SEATING OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEAR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2014-01026, -01079, and -01101
`Patents 6,655,733B1; 6,631,949 B2; and 6,631,955 B2
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The initial conference call for this case was held on January 26, 2015.
`Neither party filed a list of proposed motions. The following matters were
`discussed during the call.
`A. Scheduling Order
`Neither party expressed concerns about the schedule as set forth in the
`Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026, -01079, and -01101
`Patents 6,655,733 B1; 6,631,949 B2; and 6,631,955 B2
`
`B. Related Cases
`The parties confirmed that the related district court proceeding in the
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan remains stayed
`pending resolution of these proceedings.
`C. Proposed Motions
`Neither party has any motions contemplated at this time. We
`reminded the parties that typically motions may not be filed without prior
`authorization from the Board. We also instructed the parties to
`communicate with each other in an attempt to resolve any disagreements that
`may require motion practice before contacting the Board for authorization.
`D. Discovery
`The parties represented that currently no discovery disputes exist.
`The Panel encouraged parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery on
`their own and in accordance with the precepts set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(b). To the extent that a dispute arises between the parties relating to
`discovery, the parties shall meet and confer to resolve such a dispute before
`contacting the Board. If attempts to resolve the dispute fail, a party may
`request a conference call with the Board and the other party in order to seek
`authorization to move for relief.
`In any request for a conference call with the Board to resolve a
`discovery dispute, the requesting party shall: (a) certify that it has conferred
`with the other party in an effort to resolve the dispute; (b) identify with
`specificity the issues for which agreement has not been reached; (c) identify
`the precise relief to be sought; and (d) propose specific dates and times at
`which both parties are available for the conference call.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026, -01079, and -01101
`Patents 6,655,733 B1; 6,631,949 B2; and 6,631,955 B2
`
`E. Protective Order
`We reminded the parties that a protective order does not exist in a
`case until one is filed 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. We encourage the parties to adopt the
`Board’s default protective order if they conclude that a protective order is
`necessary. See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties choose to
`propose a protective order deviating from the default protective order, they
`must submit the proposed protective order jointly along with a marked-up
`comparison of the proposed and default protective orders showing the
`differences.
`We also advise the parties that redactions to documents filed in this
`proceeding should be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting entirely
`of confidential information, and that the thrust of the underlying argument or
`evidence must be clearly discernible from the redacted versions. We also
`reminded the parties that information subject to a protective order will
`become public if identified in a final written decision in this proceeding, and
`that a motion to expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over
`the public interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history.
`See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761.
`F. Motions to Amend
`Patent Owner indicated that it currently had no plans to file a motion to
`amend. We reminded Patent Owner that, while prior authorization from the
`Board to file a motion to amend is not required, the Patent Owner must
`confer with the Board before filing such a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026, -01079, and -01101
`Patents 6,655,733 B1; 6,631,949 B2; and 6,631,955 B2
`
`We also indicated to the parties that the Board has posted representative
`decisions relating to Motions to Amend on its website, which is accessible at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_orders_and_opinions.jsp.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026, -01079, and -01101
`Patents 6,655,733 B1; 6,631,949 B2; and 6,631,955 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`John F. Rabena
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`jrabena@sughrue.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John M. Halan
`Frank A. Angileri
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`jhalan@brookskushman.com
`fangileri@brookskushman.com
`
`5
`
`
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
