`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`
`
` Entered: August 4, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MAKO SURGICAL CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`A. DUE DATES
`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 (see Section B, below).
`
`The parties are reminded that 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.
`
`1. INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`Either party may request an initial conference call. To request a conference
`call, the parties should submit a list of dates and times when they are available for
`a call. If an initial conference call is requested, the parties should be prepared to
`discuss any proposed changes to this Scheduling Order and any motions the parties
`anticipate filing during the trial. 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
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`preparing for an initial conference call.
`
`2. 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 and fully briefed in the
`response will be deemed waived.
`
`3. 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.
`
`
`4. 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.
`
`
`5. 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`6. 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.
`
`7. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by DUE
`DATE 6.
`
`8. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE DATE 7.
`
`B. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. 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
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`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.
`
`D. PROTECTIVE ORDER
`No protective order has been entered in this proceeding. The parties are
`reminded of the requirement for a protective order when filing a motion to seal. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.54. If the parties have agreed to a proposed protective order, including
`the Standing Default Protective Order, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug 14,
`2012), they should file a signed copy of the proposed protective order with the
`motion to seal. If the parties choose to propose a protective order other than, or
`departing from, the default Standing Protective Order, they must submit a joint,
`proposed protective order, accompanied by a red-lined version based on the default
`protective order in Appendix B to the Board’s Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL …………………………… UPON REQUEST
`
`DUE DATE 1…………….…………………………………… October 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 2………………………………………………….. January 19, 2016
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner response to petition
`
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`
`DUE DATE 3……………………………………………....... February 16, 2016
`
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4…………………………………………………... March 7, 2016
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 5…………………………………..……………...... March 21, 2016
`
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6…………………………………………………….. March 28, 2016
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`DUE DATE 7……………………………………..………………… April 7, 2016
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`PETITIONER:
`Matthew I. Kreeger
`Walter Wu
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`wwu@mofo.com
`mkreeger@mofo.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Brian Buroker
`Stuart Rosenberg
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`srosenberg@gibsondunn.com
`
`Greg Stark
`Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner
`gstark@slwip.com
`
`Patrick J. McElhinny
`Mark. G. Knedeisen
`K&L Gates LLP
`patrick.mcelhinny@klgates.com
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com