`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01147 (Patent 7,994,726 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01148 (Patent 7,498,749 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01149 (Patent 7,329,970 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01150 (Patent 7,781,980 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01151 (Patent 8,288,952 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 We use this caption in this paper to indicate that this Order applies to, and
`is entered in, all five cases. The parties are not authorized to use this
`caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01147 (Patent 7,994,726 B2)
`IPR2015-01148 (Patent 7,498,749 B2)
`IPR2015-01149 (Patent 7,329,970 B2)
`IPR2015-01150 (Patent 7,781,980 B2)
`IPR2015-01151 (Patent 8,288,952 B2)
`
`
`
`On December 16, 2015, an initial conference call was held for the
`following five proceedings: IPR2015-01147, IPR2015-01148, IPR2015-
`01149, IPR2015-01150, and IPR2015-01151. The following individuals
`participated in the call: Mr. Goettle, Mr. Murphy, and Ms. Dukmen for
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile, Inc.; Mr. Mandir
`and Mr. Kelber for Patent Owner, Global Touch Solutions, LLC; and Judges
`Busch, Pettigrew, and Shaw. The purpose of the call was to discuss any
`proposed changes to the Scheduling Order and any motions that the parties
`intend to file.
`
`Patent Owner Counsel
`Counsel for Patent Owner confirmed that Mr. Mandir is lead counsel
`for Patent Owner in IPR2015-01147, IPR2015-01150, and IPR2015-01151,
`and Mr. Kelber is lead counsel for Patent Owner in IPR2015-01148 and
`IPR2015-01149.
`
`Scheduling Order
`During the call, we indicated that DUE DATE 7, the date for the oral
`hearing should either party request it, has been set for August 4, 2016, for all
`five proceedings. We further indicated that the specific format and time
`allotted will depend on the number of issues, as briefed in the Patent Owner
`Response and Reply, and the extent to which there is overlap of issues
`among the cases.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01147 (Patent 7,994,726 B2)
`IPR2015-01148 (Patent 7,498,749 B2)
`IPR2015-01149 (Patent 7,329,970 B2)
`IPR2015-01150 (Patent 7,781,980 B2)
`IPR2015-01151 (Patent 8,288,952 B2)
`
`The parties had no specific issues with the Scheduling Order.2 We
`remind the parties that if they stipulate to different dates for any of DUE
`DATES 1–5, they should promptly file a notice of stipulation identifying the
`changed due dates.
`
`Motions
`Neither party seeks authorization to file any motions at this time. We
`remind the parties that, except as otherwise provided in our rules, Board
`authorization is required before filing a motion.
`If Patent Owner should decide to file a motion to amend claims, it
`must schedule a conference call to confer with the Board two weeks prior to
`such filing. We direct the parties attention to the Board’s decisions in Idle
`Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027 (PTAB June 11,
`2013) (Paper 26), which describes the basic guidelines for a motion to
`amend, and MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., Case IPR2015-00040
`(PTAB July 15, 2015) (Paper 42), which clarifies the scope of “prior art
`known to Patent Owner.”
`
`Settlement
`The parties indicated they had nothing to report regarding any
`possible settlement.
`
`
`2 Paper 9 (IPR2015-01147); Paper 13 (IPR2015-01148); Paper 13 (IPR2015-
`01149); Paper 9 (IPR2015-01150); Paper 9 (IPR2015-01151).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01147 (Patent 7,994,726 B2)
`IPR2015-01148 (Patent 7,498,749 B2)
`IPR2015-01149 (Patent 7,329,970 B2)
`IPR2015-01150 (Patent 7,781,980 B2)
`IPR2015-01151 (Patent 8,288,952 B2)
`
`Protective Order
`The parties are reminded that there currently is no protective order in
`place, and none will be entered unless a party files a motion to seal with a
`proposed protective order.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the due dates set forth in the Scheduling Order
`remain unchanged; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time,
`other than those already authorized by Board Rules.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01147 (Patent 7,994,726 B2)
`IPR2015-01148 (Patent 7,498,749 B2)
`IPR2015-01149 (Patent 7,329,970 B2)
`IPR2015-01150 (Patent 7,781,980 B2)
`IPR2015-01151 (Patent 8,288,952 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Daniel J. Goettle
`John F. Murphy
`Sarah C. Dukmen
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`dgoettle@bakerlaw.com
`johnmurphy@bakerlaw.com
`msft-gt@bakerlaw.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`William H. Mandir
`Peter S. Park
`Brian K. Shelton
`Fadi N. Kiblawi
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`pspark@sughrue.com
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`
`Steven B. Kelber
`skelber@labgoldlaw.com
`
`Nathan Cristler
`ncristler@cristlerip.com
`
`5