`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NEST LABS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLURE ENERGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
` Case IPR2014-01424 (Patent 8,571,518 B2)1
`Case IPR2014-01426 (Patent 8,509,954 B2)
`____________
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1The Board exercises 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01424 (Patent 8,571,518 B2)
`IPR2014-01426 (Patent 8,509,954 B2)
`
`
`I.
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL SUMMARY
`
`The initial conference call for this proceeding was held on March 31,
`2015, among counsel for Nest Labs, Inc. (“Petitioner”), counsel for Allure
`Energy, Inc. (“Patent Owner”), and Judges Gerstenblith, Crumbley, and
`Cherry.
`
`A. Scheduling Order
`The parties indicated no concerns with the Scheduling Order. The
`parties were informed about the Director’s recent decision to modify certain
`procedures including page limits on motions to amend and reply briefs.
`Those changes are implemented below. No dates in the Scheduling Order
`are altered.
`
`1. Motion to Amend
`Notwithstanding the page limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, we
`
`hereby expand those limits for the following papers: a motion to amend, if
`filed in this proceeding, as well as Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to
`amend, each are limited to twenty-five (25) pages; Patent Owner’s reply to
`the opposition to the motion to amend is limited to twelve (12) pages; and
`the claim listing may be contained in an appendix to the motion to amend,
`and does not count toward the page limit of the motion. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.5(b).
`2. Petitioner’s Reply
`Notwithstanding the page limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c),
`
`Petitioner’s reply brief to patent owner response is limited to twenty-five
`(25) pages. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01424 (Patent 8,571,518 B2)
`IPR2014-01426 (Patent 8,509,954 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Motions
`Neither party intends to file a motion at this time. Patent Owner
`stated that it is contemplating filing a motion for additional discovery
`seeking evidence relating to secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`Patent Owner was directed to Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs.
`LLC, Case IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26) (Informative),
`for information regarding the requirements for a motion for seeking
`additional discovery. The parties were reminded that should they wish to
`file any motion not authorized by the Scheduling Order, they should contact
`the Board to schedule a conference call.
`
`C. Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner indicated that it might file a motion to amend in each
`case. Patent Owner is reminded that, should it decide to file a motion to
`amend, it must confer with the Board in a conference call before filing the
`motion. One purpose for the “to confer” requirement is for the Board to give
`guidance on the requirements of a motion to amend. Therefore, Patent
`Owner should leave sufficient time between such a conference call and the
`due date of the motion to amend, e.g., at least two weeks.
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`The parties are reminded to notify the Board of any changes in related
`proceedings.
`
`E. Settlement
`The parties had nothing to report regarding settlement.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01424 (Patent 8,571,518 B2)
`IPR2014-01426 (Patent 8,509,954 B2)
`
`
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`John Dragseth
`Stuart A. Nelson
`Geoffrey P. Shipsides
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`dragseth@fr.com
`IPR36563-0011IP1@fr.ocm
`IPR36563-0010IP1@fr.com
`
`Kevin X. McGann
`White & Case LLP
`kmcgann@whitecase.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`John S. Artz
`Bryan J. Schomer
`Dickinson Wright PLLC
`jsartz@dickinsonwright.com
`bschomer@dickinsonwright.com
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
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
