`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
` Entered: April 9, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the above-listed cases. Although we issue one order
`to be docketed in each case, the parties are not authorized to use this caption for
`any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`
`On April 8, 2015, the initial conference call was held between counsel for
`the respective parties and Judges Medley and Deshpande.
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that Patent Owner has served
`Petitioner an objection to Ex. 11072 (“Takaoka”) within ten business days of the
`Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Dec.”) inter partes review, and in response,
`Petitioner has served supplemental evidence pertaining to Patent Owner’s
`objection to Patent Owner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). Petitioner now requests
`authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.123(a) in the form of a declaration from a librarian regarding the publication
`date of Takaoka, as suggested in the Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Dec.”). See
`Dec. 9 n. 7. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request to file supplemental
`information because 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) only requires that the supplemental
`information be served and does not permit Petitioner to file the supplemental
`information. We have taken Petitioner and Patent Owner’s arguments under
`advisement and authorized (1) Petitioner to file a motion to file supplemental
`information, with the supplemental information itself, not to exceed three pages in
`length and due no later than April 15, 2015, and (2) Patent Owner to file an
`opposition to Petitioner’s motion, not to exceed three pages in length, and due no
`later than April 22, 2015.
`Petitioner further requests authorization to increase the page limit of
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to twenty-five pages, consistent
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all citations are to IPR2014-01415.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`with United States Patent & Trademark Office Director Michelle K. Lee’s blog.3
`Petitioner submits this request for IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-
`00579, IPR2014-00875, IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01415, and
`IPR2014-01416. Patent Owner opposes the increase to the page limit because
`Patent Owner indicates that the large number of inter partes reviews requested by
`Petitioner and the large number of pages in each of these proceedings creates a
`special circumstance and Director Lee’s changes to the page limits for the
`Petitioner’s Reply should not apply because of this special circumstance. Patent
`Owner further requests a five page Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply because Patent
`Owner’s Response was due before the changes were announced by Director Lee.
`We authorize Petitioner’s request to increase the page limit to twenty-five
`pages because the increase of the Petitioner’s reply to twenty-five pages is
`consistent with Director Lee’s blog. We do not find any rule, new or old, to
`authorize Patent Owner’s request for a Sur-Reply, and, therefore, we deny Patent
`Owner’s request to file a five page Sur-Reply.
`We further remind the parties that, if they seek authorization to file a motion
`not contemplated per the Scheduling Order, the party requesting such authorization
`must arrange for a conference call with us and opposing counsel.
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to file supplemental information is granted;
`
`3 http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to file supplemental information
`is to not exceed three pages in length and is due no later than April 15, 2015.
`FURTHER ORDERED Patent Owner is authorized to file an opposition to
`Petitioner’s motion to file supplemental information.
`FURTHER ORDERED Patent Owner’s opposition is to not exceed three
`pages in length and is due no later than April 22, 2015.
`FURTHER ORDERED the page limit to Petitioner’s Reply is increased to
`25 pages for IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00579, IPR2014-00875,
`IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01415, and IPR2014-01416.
`FURTHER ORDERED Patent Owner’s request to file a five page Sur-Reply
`in IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, and IPR2014-00579 is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01415 (Patent 8,214,097 B2)
`IPR2014-01416 (Patent 7,237,634 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`Frank A. Angileri
`Michael D. Cushion
`Andrew B. Turner
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0110IPR2@brookskushman.com
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`John E. Nemazi
`John P. Rondini
`Erin K. Bowles
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP0104IPR3@brookskushman.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`DENTONS US LLP
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`riffe@fr.com
`IPR36351-0012IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
