throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket