`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: May 26, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NFC TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01198
`Patent 6,700,551 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`We revise the Scheduling Order (Paper 11), entered February 4, 2015,
`
`to set DUE DATE 7 as November 2, 2015.
`
`A. DUE DATES
`
`This order sets the remaining due dates for the parties to take action
`
`after institution of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate to different
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01198
`Patent 6,700,551 B2
`
`dates for remaining DUE DATES 4 and 51 (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. 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.
`
`
`1 Because Patent Owner did not file a motion to amend, DUE DATE 3 is no
`longer applicable in this case. See Paper 16, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01198
`Patent 6,700,551 B2
`
`3. 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.
`
`4. DUE DATE 6
`
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`5. DUE DATE 7
`
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for revised 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); Atrium Medical Corp. v. Davol,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01198
`Patent 6,700,551 B2
`
`Inc., Case IPR2013-00189, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2014) (Paper 48)
`
`(providing guidance on the form and content of observations and responses
`
`to observations). The 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01198
`Patent 6,700,551 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................. September 25, 2015
`
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ........................................................................ October 9, 2015
`
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ...................................................................... October 16, 2015
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`REVISED DUE DATE 7 .................................................. November 2, 2015
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01198
`Patent 6,700,551 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Bing Ai
`Thomas N. Millikan
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`TMillikan@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins-Service-HTC-NFC-IPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jon E. Wright
`John H. Curry
`Amirali Sharifi
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTAIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`Jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`jcurry-PTAB@skgf.com
`asharifi-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Robert Auchter
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`rauchter@McKoolSmith.com
`
`
`6
`
`