`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: April 3, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01096 (Patent 7,537,370)1
`Case IPR2014-01097 (Patent 7,300,194)
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in both cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096 (Patent 7,537,370)
`IPR2014-01097 (Patent 7,300,194)
`
`
`
`An initial conference call for these proceedings took place on
`
`February 17, 2015. The parties were represented by their respective counsel.
`
`Administrative Patent Judges Giannetti, Powell, and Bunting participated.
`
`No court reporter was present on the call.
`
`We noted that Patent Owner filed an updated power of attorney
`
`and updated mandatory notice prior to the initial conference call, naming
`
`Mr. T. William Kennedy as back-up counsel. We requested Patent
`
`Owner file a Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of Mr. Kennedy, before
`
`Mr. Kennedy can appear in these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`(The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a
`
`showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel be a
`
`registered practitioner and to any other conditions as the Board may
`
`impose.).
`
`During the call, Petitioner requested authorization to file a reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition (Paper 18) to Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`(Paper 15) of certain grounds in IPR2014-01096, in which institution was
`
`denied. The Panel denied authorization for the requested reply, and we
`
`subsequently denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing. (Paper 21).
`
`
`
`The following matters were also discussed during the initial
`
`conference call:
`
`1. Schedule
`
`
`
`The parties did not propose any changes to the scheduling order.
`
`3. Protective Order
`
`
`
`No order was entered. The parties should contact the Board to request
`
`entry of a protective order if necessary.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096 (Patent 7,537,370)
`IPR2014-01097 (Patent 7,300,194)
`
`4. Initial Disclosures
`
`
`
`None have been exchanged.
`
`5. Additional Discovery and Compelled Testimony
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not anticipate requesting additional discovery at this
`
`time. Patent Owner indicated they may request authorization to file a
`
`motion for additional discovery relating to the real party-in-interest for the
`
`petitions at issue in these proceedings. We reminded Patent Owner that
`
`authorization is required to file such a motion, and referred Patent Owner to
`
`the Trial Practice guide and the “Garmin Factors” discussed in the
`
`informative opinion of Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs LLC,
`
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (March 5, 2013). See also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.51(b)(2) (The moving party must show that such additional discovery is
`
`in the interests of justice).
`
`6. Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`Patent Owner will request a conference before filing a motion to
`
`amend.
`
`7. Other Motions
`
`
`
`No other motions were authorized.
`
`8. Settlement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties had nothing to report.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01096 (Patent 7,537,370)
`IPR2014-01097 (Patent 7,300,194)
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner file a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`admission of Mr. Kennedy within 5 business days of entry of this order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda K. Streff
`Anita Y. Lam
`Baldine B. Paul
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`4
`
`
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
