` Entered: February 26, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ATOPTECH, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01145 (6,237,127 B1)
`Case IPR2014-01150 (6,567,967 B2)
`Case IPR2014-01159 (6,567,967 B2)
`____________
`
`Before TRENTON A. WARD, PETER P. CHEN, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01145 (6,237,127 B1)
`IPR2014-01150 (6,567,967 B2)
`IPR2014-01159 (6,567,967 B2)
`
`
`On February 25, 2015, a telephone conference was held between
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Ward, Chen, and Ippolito. The
`following matters were discussed.
`Related Matters
`The parties indicated that the district court litigation involving the
`parties is stayed. Additionally, Petitioner advised that in IPR2015-00760 it
`filed a petition directed to claims of the U.S. Patent No. 6,237,127 B1 with a
`Motion for Joinder to IPR2014-01145. Patent Owner indicated that it
`planned to file an opposition to Petitioner’s motion within the default one
`month filing period. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.25(a)(1).
`Scheduling Order
`The parties indicated that they have no concerns with the Scheduling
`Order entered on January 21, 2015. As indicated in the Scheduling Order,
`the parties may stipulate to different dates for Due Dates 1–3. See IPR2014-
`01145, Paper 8, 2. To the extent that the parties reach an agreement on
`different dates for Due Dates 1–3, the parties will need to file a notice of
`stipulation.
`
`Motions
`Patent Owner indicated that, at this time, it may file a contingent
`motion to amend. Should Patent Owner decide to file a motion to amend, it
`first must confer with the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). This
`conference should take place at least two weeks before filing the motion to
`amend. Patent Owner is reminded that, unlike a challenge to a patented
`claim, where the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability
`with a motion to amend, the burden is on the patent owner to demonstrate
`patentability.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01145 (6,237,127 B1)
`IPR2014-01150 (6,567,967 B2)
`IPR2014-01159 (6,567,967 B2)
`
`
`Protective Order
`No protective order has been entered. The parties are reminded of the
`requirement for a protective order when filing a motion to seal. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54. If the parties have agreed to a proposed protective order, including
`the Standing Protective Order, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, Appendix B (Aug 14,
`2012), they should file a signed copy of the proposed protective order with
`the motion to seal. If the parties propose a protective order other than or
`departing from the default Standing Protective Order, Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, id., they must submit a joint, proposed protective order,
`accompanied by a red-lined version based on the default Standing Protective
`Order in Appendix B to the Board’s Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. See
`id. at 48769.
`
`Settlement
`The parties advised that they have nothing to report regarding
`settlement discussions at this time.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01145 (6,237,127 B1)
`IPR2014-01150 (6,567,967 B2)
`IPR2014-01159 (6,567,967 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey A. Miller
`Deborah E. Fishman
`Paul G. Novak
`Michael S. Tonkinson
`DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`millerj@dicksteinshapiro.com
`fishmand@dicksteinshapiro.com
`novakp@dicksteinshapiro.com
`tonkinsonm@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`Robert E. Bugg
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`robert.bugg@kayescholer.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David B. Cochran
`Joseph M. Sauer
`David W. Wu
`JONES DAY
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`dwwu@jonesday.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
