` 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