`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: September 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-004361
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, and IPR2015-00439 have been
`consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`
`During the initial conference call in this proceeding on July 29, 2015,
`Patent Owner stated that it was in the process of discussing with Petitioner a
`potential request for an extension of the page limits for Patent Owner’s
`Response and Petitioner’s Reply, but did not know at that time how many
`pages it would need for the Response. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24(b)(2),
`42.24(c)(1). Petitioner was amenable to some extension, but requested that
`specific page limits be set rather than waiting until Patent Owner files its
`Response. We agreed that specific page limits should be set, as they
`typically are by rule, but also were persuaded that Patent Owner should be
`given additional time to determine how many pages it would request.
`We ordered the parties to confer and notify the Board by email, no later than
`September 9, 2015, of “the number of additional pages the parties request
`(either jointly or individually) for each paper.” Paper 16, 2–3.
`The parties’ email did not comply with the Order. Patent Owner
`stated that it did not yet know how many pages it wanted to request, and
`proposed that a decision on page limits be deferred to September 28, 2015.
`Petitioner included substantive argument as to why Patent Owner’s proposal
`was improper. Via email, we ordered the parties again to tell us the
`“specific number of pages” being requested. Petitioner, via email, proposed
`90 pages for Patent Owner’s Response and 38 pages for Petitioner’s Reply.
`Patent Owner, via email, proposed 90 pages for its Response, argued that it
`is premature to extend any page limits for Petitioner’s Reply, and stated that
`if the Response as filed is 90 pages, Petitioner should be permitted 38 pages
`for the Reply.
`We are persuaded that a limited extension of the page limits is
`appropriate, given the consolidation of three other cases with
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-00436 and the similarities in asserted prior art and arguments
`in the four Petitions. Accordingly, the page limit for Patent Owner’s
`Response is extended to 90 pages and the page limit for Petitioner’s Reply is
`extended, by a proportional amount, to 38 pages. All other page limits in
`this proceeding are unchanged. We also remind the parties that any future
`emails to Trials@uspto.gov should follow instructions provided by the
`Board and may not include substantive argument. The parties are referred to
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-
`decisions/trials/patent-review-processing-system-prps-0 regarding the proper
`use of email communication to the Board.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the page limit for Patent Owner’s Response is
`extended to 90 pages, and the page limit for Petitioner’s Reply is extended to
`38 pages.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`A. Justin Poplin
`Timothy K. Sendek
`Allan Sternstein
`Jon Trembath
`Douglas W. Link
`LATHROP & GAGE LLP
`patent@lathropgage.com
`TSendek@lathropgage.com
`ASternstein@lathropgage.com
`jtrembath@lathropgage.com
`dlink@lathropgage.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Timothy A. Flory
`Terence J. Linn
`GARDNER, LINN, BURKHART & FLORY, LLP
`Flory@glbf.com
`linn@glbf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`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
