Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
` Entered: March 19, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
` Entered: March 19, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`
`A. NO INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`We will not hold an initial conference call in this case. The parties should
`contact the Board immediately to request a call if they have any questions or
`concerns about the schedule that the parties cannot resolve within the guidelines
`stated below. In lieu of an initial conference call, we remind the parties of the
`following matters and Board procedures.
`1. Motion to Amend Conference
`The Patent Owner must confer with the Board before filing a Motion to
`Amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Patent Owner should contact the Board to request
`the conference in sufficient time to ensure that the conference is conducted at least
`one week before DUE DATE 1.
`2. Confidential Information
`A protective order does not exist in this case until requested by a party and
`approved by the Board. If a motion to seal is filed by either party, the proposed
`protective order should be presented as an exhibit to the motion. If a protective
`order is requested, the parties are encouraged to use the Board’s default protective
`order. See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012).
`3..Testimony Guidelines
`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.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`
`B. DUE DATES
`The Due Date Appendix attached to this Order sets due dates for the parties
`to take action after institution of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate to
`different dates for DUE DATES 1 through 5 (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.
`
`1. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file—
`a.
`A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`b.
`A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE
`DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner must
`arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board. The patent owner is
`cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be
`deemed waived.
`
`2. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and
`opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`
`
`3. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to patent
`owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`4. 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.
`
`5. DUE DATE 5
`a.
`Each party must file any reply 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.
`
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by DUE
`DATE 6.
`
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE DATE 7.
`
`C. 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).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`
`
`Cross-examination ends no later than a week before the filing date for
`2.
`any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to be used. Id.
`
`D. 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). 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................. June 22, 2015
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ................................................................... September 21, 2015
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ....................................................................... October 20, 2015
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ................................................................... November 10, 2015
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................... November 24, 2015
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ...................................................................... December 1, 2015
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 .................................................................... December 16, 2015
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01497
`Patent 8,531,278 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`A. Justin Poplin
`Josh C. Snider
`Timothy K. Sendek
`Allan Sternstein
`LATHROP & GAGE, LLP
`jpoplin@lathropgage.com
`jsnider@lathropgage.com
`patent@lathropgage.com
`tsendek@lathropgage.com
`asternstein@lathropgage.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy A. Flory
`Terence J. Linn
`GARDNER, LINN, BURKHART & FLORY, LLP
`flory@glbf.com
`linn@glbf.com
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Mark W. Rygiel
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`mrygiel-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`7
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
