`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: July 31, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00610
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00610
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`An initial conference call in the above proceeding was held on July
`
`29, 2015, between respective counsel for the parties and Judges Lee,
`
`Anderson, and Clements.
`
`Prior to the call, only Petitioner filed a proposed motions list. Paper 9.
`
`On the call, both parties confirmed that, at this time, they do not anticipate
`
`filing any motions.
`
`Petitioner sought to coordinate the Due Dates in this case with those
`
`in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v.
`
`e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00607, which involves the same parties. We
`
`reminded the parties that, without obtaining prior authorization from the
`
`Board, they may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1–5, as
`
`provided in the Scheduling Order, by filing an appropriate notice with the
`
`Board. With respect to DUE DATE 6, it is changed to February 17, 2016,
`
`consistent with IPR2015-00607. With respect to DUE DATE 7, we
`
`observed that the parties will be participating two hearings—for both
`
`IPR2015-00607 and Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Ltd., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-004141—on February
`
`24, 2016, and asked Patent Owner whether it objected to having a third
`
`hearing—for the present case—on the same date. Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`requested an opportunity to confer with the client. Patent Owner agreed to
`
`notify the panel if it objects to scheduling the hearing in the present case on
`
`February 24, 2016.
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-00611 is joined to this case.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00610
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`Finally, we took the opportunity to advise counsel for each party that
`
`a proper Motion to Exclude Evidence should not include arguments alleging
`
`that a reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply. If such an issue arises, the
`
`parties should initiate a telephone conference call with the Board.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is ordered that
`
`Due Date 6 is reset to February 17, 2016; and
`
`Patent Owner is ordered to notify the panel by Friday, August 7, 2015,
`
`if it objects to resetting Due Date 7 to February 24, 2016.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00610
`Patent 7,365,871 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Steven L. Park
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`stevenpark@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`David O. Simmons
`bob@curfiss.com
`dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`
`
`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
