Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: May 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CORELOGIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: May 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CORELOGIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`
`This Order sets a schedule for trial, including due dates for the parties
`
`to take action upon institution of the trial. See Appendix.
`
`A. INITIAL CONFERENCE
`
`The Appendix does not specify a date for an initial conference call.
`
`An initial conference call will be scheduled if either party requests it within
`
`21 days after entry of this Order. If an initial conference call is scheduled,
`
`the parties are directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) for guidance in preparing for the
`
`call, and should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the schedule
`
`and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`B. MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT
`
`The parties are encouraged to engage in meaningful discussion before
`
`seeking authorization under 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b) to file a motion for relief
`
`with the Board. At a minimum, before requesting authorization, the parties
`
`shall confer with each other in a good-faith effort to resolve the issue for
`
`which relief is to be sought. Only if the parties cannot resolve the issue on
`
`their own may a party request a conference call with the Board in order to
`
`seek authorization to move for relief.1 In any request for a conference call
`
`with the Board, the requesting party shall: (1) certify that it has in good-
`
`faith conferred (or attempted to confer) with the other parties in an effort to
`
`resolve the issue; (2) identify with specificity the issue for which agreement
`
`has not been reached; (3) state the precise relief to be sought; and
`
`
`1 Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization, but
`only after conferring with the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`(4) propose specific dates and times at which both parties are available for
`
`the conference call.
`
`C. DUE DATES
`
`The Appendix specifies due dates for the parties to take action in this
`
`trial. 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 any
`
`stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be filed
`
`promptly with the Board. 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 D, below).
`
`1. DUE DATE 1
`
`The patent owner may file—
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`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. 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 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.
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`D. 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.
`
`E. 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. at 48,768. 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.
`
`F. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`Pursuant to recent amendments to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, the following
`
`page limits apply in this proceeding: a motion to amend, if filed, and
`
`petitioner’s opposition to the motion to amend, each are limited to twenty-
`
`five (25) pages; and patent owner’s reply to the opposition to the motion to
`
`amend is limited to twelve (12) pages. See Amendments to the Rules of
`
`Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 80 Fed. Reg.
`
`28,561, 28,565 (May 19, 2015). The page limit of the motion to amend does
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`not include the claim listing set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), which, as
`
`amended, provides that the claim listing may be contained in an appendix to
`
`the motion. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 28,566.
`
`G.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`Pursuant to a recent amendment to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c), petitioner’s
`
`reply brief to the patent owner’s response to the petition is limited to twenty-
`
`five (25) pages. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 28,565.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ............................................. Upon Request
`
`DUE DATE 1 ........................................................................ August 20, 2015
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 .................................................................. November 20, 2015
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ................................................................... December 17, 2015
`
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ......................................................................... January 7, 2016
`
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ....................................................................... January 21, 2016
`
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ....................................................................... January 28, 2016
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ..................................................................... February 11, 2016
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00228
`Patent 7,092,957 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lawrence Edelman
`The Law Office of Lawrence Edelman
`lawrence.edelman@comcast.net
`
`
`
`
`8
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
