`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: September 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BIOMEDICAL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00786
`Patent 8,584,853 B2
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00786
`Patent 8,584,853 B2
`
`
`A conference call in the above proceeding was held on September 15,
`2015 amongst respective counsel for Petitioner, Wright Medical
`Technology, Inc., and Patent Owner, Biomedical Enterprises, Inc., and
`Judges Plenzler and Goodson.
`Patent Owner requested the call to discuss requested changes to the
`Scheduling Order (Paper 8). Patent Owner provided its proposed changes to
`the Scheduling Order via email in advance of the call as requested by the
`Board. The proposed new dates are as follows:
`Due Date 1 – October 13, 2015;
`Due Date 2 – January 11, 2016;
`Due Date 3 – January 11, 2016;
`Due Date 4 – January 22, 2016;
`Due Date 5 – January 29, 2016;
`Due Date 6 – February 5, 2016; and
`Due Date 7 – February 16, 2016.
`With respect to Due Date 3, Patent Owner indicated that it will not file a
`Motion to Amend. Patent Owner also explained that the time removed from
`the schedule with the proposed new dates is primarily taken from Due Dates
`1 and 3 (time for Patent Owner’s filings), and that the time for Petitioner’s
`Reply (Due Date 2) is unchanged. Patent Owner explained that it wished to
`expedite the schedule in this proceeding so that a final decision may issue
`before trial begins in the related district court proceeding, which it indicated
`is scheduled to begin on June 6, 2016.
`
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request. During the conference
`call Petitioner explained that it opposed the request because it was premature
`in view of the Patent Owner Response not yet having been filed. Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00786
`Patent 8,584,853 B2
`
`expressed concern over the amount of time that may be required to depose
`witnesses in the event Patent Owner attempts to antedate the art asserted in
`the instituted challenges, but could not identify any particular prejudice
`under the proposed new schedule (indicating instead that additional time
`may be required even under the current schedule). Petitioner also indicated
`that an earlier-issued final decision in this proceeding would not improve
`efficiency in the related district court proceeding because Petitioner has
`additional defenses it intends to present in the district court and because the
`Board’s decision is appealable and, therefore, not final. Petitioner, however,
`agreed that the allotted time for its filings is generally unchanged, and
`indicated that it would not have an issue accommodating a February hearing.
`
`Based on the particular circumstances before us, and the ability of the
`panel to accommodate an earlier hearing in this case, we determine that it is
`appropriate to grant Patent Owner’s request for a revised schedule.
`Accordingly, the schedule is revised according to the due dates listed
`in the Revised Due Date Appendix below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00786
`Patent 8,584,853 B2
`
`
`
`REVISED DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ...................................................................... October 13, 2015
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ....................................................................... January 11, 2016
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................................ N/A
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ....................................................................... January 22, 2016
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ....................................................................... January 29, 2016
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ....................................................................... February 5, 2016
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ..................................................................... February 17, 2016
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00786
`Patent 8,584,853 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Patrick D. McPherson
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`Samuel W. Apicelli
`swapicelli@duanemorris.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David M. Hoffman
`IPR22484-0004IP1@fr.com
`
`5
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
