`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
` Entered: March 27, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01366 (Patent 6,108,704)
`Case IPR2014-01367 (Patent 6,009,459)
` Case IPR2014-01368 (Patent 6,131,121)1
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE and BART A. GERSTENBLITH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01366 (Patent 6,108,704)
`IPR2014-01367 (Patent 6,009,459)
`IPR2014-01368 (Patent 6,131,121)
`
`
`On March 26, 2015, the initial conference call was held between counsel for
`
`the respective parties and Judges Deshpande and Gerstenblith.
`
`
`
`Motions
`
`Patent Owner indicated that it presently does not intend to file a motion to
`
`amend. As discussed, if Patent Owner determines that it will file a motion to
`
`amend, Patent Owner must arrange for a conference call, preferably two weeks
`
`prior to filing the motion to amend, with us and opposing counsel to discuss the
`
`proposed motion to amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Because the terms of these
`
`patents expire on September 25, 2015, if Patent Owner decides to file a motion to
`
`amend, an expedited schedule for the motion to amend will need to be determined
`
`and authorized. Additional guidance on motions to amend claims is provided in
`
`the Board’s Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (see Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012)) and in relevant Board
`
`decisions, including Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-00005, Paper 27
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2013), and Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-
`
`00027, Paper 26 (PTAB June 11, 2013).
`
`Patent Owner requested, Petitioner did not oppose, and we authorize for
`
`Patent Owner to submit the briefing in Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU
`
`S.R.O., No. 15-1212 (Fed. Cir.), in original form and without any additional
`
`argument.
`
`We reminded the parties that, if they seek authorization to file a motion not
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01366 (Patent 6,108,704)
`IPR2014-01367 (Patent 6,009,459)
`IPR2014-01368 (Patent 6,131,121)
`
`contemplated per the Scheduling Order, the party requesting such authorization
`
`must arrange for a conference call with us and opposing counsel.
`
`
`
`Schedule
`
`Counsel for the respective parties indicated that they have no issues with the
`
`Scheduling Order entered March 6, 2015. See, e.g., IPR2014-01366, Paper 13.
`
`To the extent issues arise with DUE DATES 1–5 identified in the
`
`Scheduling Order, we remind the parties that, without obtaining prior authorization
`
`from us, they may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1–5, but no later
`
`than DUE DATE 6, as provided in the Scheduling Order, by filing an appropriate
`
`notice with the Board. The parties may not stipulate to any other changes to the
`
`Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01366 (Patent 6,108,704)
`IPR2014-01367 (Patent 6,009,459)
`IPR2014-01368 (Patent 6,131,121)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brian Erickson
`Jeff Cole
`Samsung-SP-IPR@dlapiper.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Meunier
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`
`Matthew Durell
`MDurell@mintz.com
`
`
`
`1 The Board exercises its discretion to issue one identical Decision in each
`case using this caption style. Unless otherwise authorized, the parties are not
`permitted to use this style.
`
`
`
`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
