Paper 12
`Entered: November 6, 2015
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FLOTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., TURBECO, INC. (d/b/a
`SPIDLE TURBECO, d/b/a GALLEON TURBECO and d/b/a CAVO
`DRILLING MOTORS), and
`TELEDRIFT COMPANY (d/b/a SPIDLE TURBECO),
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NATIONAL OILWELL DHT, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`____________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`Entered: November 6, 2015
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FLOTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., TURBECO, INC. (d/b/a
`SPIDLE TURBECO, d/b/a GALLEON TURBECO and d/b/a CAVO
`DRILLING MOTORS), and
`TELEDRIFT COMPANY (d/b/a SPIDLE TURBECO),
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NATIONAL OILWELL DHT, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`____________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`
`
`1. 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.
`
`2. 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.
`
`3. 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.
`
`4. 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`
`5. 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.
`
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`7. 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`
`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 paragraph. The opposing party may
`respond to the observation. Any response must be equally concise and
`specific.
`
`D. MOTION TO AMEND
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization
`from the Board. Nevertheless, Patent Owner must confer with the Board
`before filing such a motion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Patent Owner should
`arrange for a conference call with the panel and opposing counsel at least one
`week before DUE DATE 1 in order to satisfy the conferral requirement. We
`direct the parties to the Board’s website for representative decisions relating to
`Motions to Amend among other topics. The parties may access these
`representative decisions at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_orders_and_opinions.jsp.
`
`
`E. 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 Default Standing 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`
`order, accompanied by a red-lined version based on the Default Standing
`Protective Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ................. December 3, 2015, 2:00 pm ET
`
`DUE DATE 1 ....................................................................... January 28, 2016
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................... April 21, 2016
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................ May 19, 2016
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .............................................................................. June 9, 2016
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ............................................................................ June 23, 2016
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................ June 30, 2016
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ............................................................................. July 21, 2016
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01210
`Patent 6,431,294 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James Murphy
`Andrew Weaver
`NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY
`BOVE + QUIGG LLP
`james.murphy@novakdruce.com
`andrew.weaver@novakdruce.com
`Flotek-IPR@novakdruce.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`JL Jennie Salazar
`Valerie Friedrich
`THE JL SALAZAR LAW FIRM,
`PLLC
`jls@jlsalazar.com
`
`Robert McAughan
`David Terrell
`SUTTON MCAUGHAN DEAVER PLLC
`bmcaughan@smid-iplaw.com
`dterrell@smid-iplaw.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
