`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`and
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01034 (Patent 5,894,506)
`Case IPR2014-01035 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2014-01036 (Patent 5,915,210)
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034 (Patent 5,894,506)
`Case IPR2014-01035 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2014-01036 (Patent 5,915,210)
`
`A. DUE DATES
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate to different dates for DUE
`DATES 2 through 5 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 6). A
`notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must
`be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate to an extension of DUE
`DATES 6 and 7.
`In stipulating to different times, the parties should consider the effect
`of the stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)), to
`supplement evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct
`cross-examination (37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending
`on the evidence and cross-examination testimony (see section B, below).
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix D), apply to this proceeding. The Board may
`impose an appropriate sanction for failure to adhere to the Testimony
`Guidelines. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For example, reasonable expenses and
`attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who
`impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
`
`1. INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`The parties are directed to contact the Board within a month of this
`decision if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling
`Order or proposed motions. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) (guidance in preparing for the
`initial conference call).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034 (Patent 5,894,506)
`Case IPR2014-01035 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2014-01036 (Patent 5,915,210)
`
`2. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file—
`a.
`A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`b.
`A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE
`DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner
`must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board. The patent
`owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the
`response will be deemed waived.
`
`3. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and
`opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`
`4. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to
`patent owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`5. DUE DATE 4
`a.
`Each party must file any motion for an observation on the
`cross-examination testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`b.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034 (Patent 5,894,506)
`Case IPR2014-01035 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2014-01036 (Patent 5,915,210)
`
`6. DUE DATE 5
`a.
`Each party must file any response to an observation on
`cross-examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`b.
`Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence by DUE DATE 5.
`
`7. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`8. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7.
`
`B. CROSS-EXAMINATION
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1.
`Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is
`due. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`2.
`Cross-examination ends no later than a week before the filing
`date for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to
`be used. Id.
`
`C. MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`A motion for observation on cross-examination provides the parties
`with a mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant
`cross-examination testimony of a reply witness because no further
`substantive paper is permitted after the reply. See Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034 (Patent 5,894,506)
`Case IPR2014-01035 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2014-01036 (Patent 5,915,210)
`
`observation must be a concise statement of the relevance of precisely
`identified testimony to a precisely identified argument or portion of an
`exhibit. Each observation should not exceed a single, short paragraph. The
`opposing party may respond to the observation. Any response must be
`equally concise and specific.
`
`D. MOTION TO AMEND
`
`Notwithstanding the page limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, we
`hereby expand those limits for the following papers: a motion to amend, if
`filed in this proceeding, as well as petitioner’s opposition to the motion to
`amend, each are limited to twenty-five (25) pages; patent owner’s reply to
`the opposition to the motion to amend is limited to twelve (12) pages; and
`the claim listing may be contained in an appendix to the motion to amend,
`and does not count toward the page limit of the motion. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.5(b).
`E.
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Notwithstanding the page limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c),
`petitioner’s reply brief to patent owner response is limited to twenty-five
`(25) pages. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034 (Patent 5,894,506)
`Case IPR2014-01035 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2014-01036 (Patent 5,915,210)
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ..................................... UPON REQUEST
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................ May 21, 2015
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................. July 21, 2015
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ........................................................................ August 21, 2015
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................. September 11, 2015
`
`
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................. September 25, 2015
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ........................................................................ October 2, 2015
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ...................................................................... October 15, 2015
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01034 (Patent 5,894,506)
`Case IPR2014-01035 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2014-01036 (Patent 5,915,210)
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz,
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf@fr.com
`IPR39521-00051P1@fr.com
`
`Pierre J. Hubert
`Steven J. Pollinger
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`phubert@mckoolsmith.com
`spollinger@mckoolsmith.com
`01048-21IP403@McKoolSmith.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`John.Kasha@KashaLaw.com
`
`Craig S. Jepson
`Kirk D. Dorius
`REED & SCARDINO LLP
`kdorius@reedscardino.com
`cjepson@reedscardino.com
`
`7