Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 17, 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 IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMES P. CALVE, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 17, 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 IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMES P. CALVE, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`
`
`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 filed promptly. 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 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. See 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.
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`1.
`The parties are directed to contact the Board within a month of this
`decision if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling
`Order or proposed motions. 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
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`
`anticipate filing during the trial. The parties are directed to the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,765–66, for guidance in preparing
`for the 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 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 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`
`
`DUE DATE 5
`6.
`a. Each party must file any reply 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.
`DUE DATE 6
`7.
`Each party must file any reply to an opposition 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.
`CROSS-EXAMINATION
`B.
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1. Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is due.
`See 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. See 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 witness, since no further substantive paper is
`permitted after the reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. at 48,767–68. 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
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`
`paragraph. The parties 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. See 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL………………………... UPON REQUEST
`
`DUE DATE 1……………………….………………………... Nov. 24, 2015
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2……………….……………………………….... Feb. 1, 2016
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner response to petition
`
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`
`DUE DATE 3………….………………………….................... Mar. 2, 2016
`
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4…………………………………………............ Mar. 23, 2016
`
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of a witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`
`DUE DATE 5………….……..……………………………….. Apr. 6, 2016
`
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6……..…….………………………………..….... Apr. 13, 2016
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`DUE DATE 7….……..……………..………………………….. May 3, 2016
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00949
`Patent 8,629,768 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Timothy K. Sendek
`Lathrop & Gage LLP
`TSendek@lathropgage.com
`
`Allan Sternstein
`Lathrop & Gage LLP
`patent@lathropgage.com
`
`A. Justin Poplin
`Lathrop & Gage LLP
`JPoplin@lathropgage.com
`
`Douglas Link
`Lathrop & Gage LLP
`dlink@lathropgage.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`Davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Timothy A. Flory, Esq.
`Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Flory, LLP
`Flory@glbf.com
`
`Terence J. Linn
`Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Flory, LLP
`linn@glbf.com
`
`
`
` 7
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
