Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: January 6, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and SUSAN L. C.
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use a multiple proceeding caption. They must
`file individual papers separately in each proceeding to which they pertain.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: January 6, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and SUSAN L. C.
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use a multiple proceeding caption. They must
`file individual papers separately in each proceeding to which they pertain.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`1. Initial Conference Call
`The parties are directed to contact the Board via e-mail at Trials@uspto.gov
`prior to the date scheduled below if there is no need to discuss proposed changes to
`this Scheduling Order or proposed motions. If no discussion is needed, the initial
`conference call will be cancelled. 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 preparing for the initial conference call, and should be prepared to
`discuss any proposed changes to this Scheduling Order (i.e., DUE DATES 6 and 7)
`and any motions that are not authorized already by our Rules or by this Scheduling
`Order, which the parties anticipate filing during the proceeding.
`2. Protective Order
`A protective order is not entered in this proceeding unless the parties
`propose one and the panel approves it. If either party files a motion to seal before
`entry of a protective order, a jointly proposed protective order should be presented
`as an exhibit to the motion. We encourage the parties to adopt the Board’s default
`protective order if they conclude that a protective order is necessary. See Default
`Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B.
`If the parties choose to propose a protective order deviating from the default
`protective order, they must submit the proposed protective order jointly along with
`a marked-up comparison of the proposed and default protective orders showing the
`deviations.
`The Board has a strong interest in the public availability of the proceedings.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14. We advise the parties that redactions to documents filed in this
`proceeding should be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting entirely of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`confidential information, and that the thrust of the underlying argument or
`evidence must be clearly discernible to the public from the redacted versions. We
`also advise the parties that information subject to a protective order will become
`public if identified in a final written decision in this proceeding, and that a motion
`to expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over the public’s interest in
`maintaining a complete and understandable file history. See Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761; 37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`Notwithstanding the default filing times for an opposition and a reply
`reflected in 37 C.F.R. § 42.25(a):
`(1) an opposition, if any, to a motion to seal is due seven (7) days after
`service of the motion; and
`(2) a reply, if any, to an opposition to a motion to seal is due seven (7) days
`after service of the opposition.
`3. Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization from
`the panel. 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 ten (10) business days
`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.
`4. Discovery Disputes
`The panel encourages the parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery on
`their own and in accordance with the precepts set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). To
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`the extent that a dispute arises between the parties relating to discovery, the parties
`shall meet and confer to resolve such a dispute before contacting the Board. If
`attempts to resolve the dispute fail, either party may request a conference call with
`the Board and the other party in order to seek authorization to move for relief.
`In any request for a conference call with the Board to resolve a discovery
`dispute, the requesting party shall: (a) certify that it has conferred with the other
`party in an effort to resolve the dispute; (b) identify with specificity the issues for
`which agreement has not been reached; (c) identify the precise relief to be sought;
`and (d) propose a plurality of dates and times at which both parties are available
`for the conference call.
`5. Depositions
`The parties are advised that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,772, App. D, apply to this
`proceeding. The Board may impose an appropriate sanction or sanctions 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.
`Whenever a party submits a deposition transcript as an exhibit in this
`proceeding, the submitting party shall file the full transcript of the deposition rather
`than excerpts of only those portions being cited. After a deposition transcript has
`been submitted as an exhibit, all parties who subsequently cite to portions of the
`transcript shall cite to the first-filed exhibit rather than submitting another copy of
`the same transcript.
`6. Cross-Examination
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`
`Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is due.
`1.
`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.
`7. 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. at 48,768. The observation
`must be a concise statement of the relevance of specifically identified testimony to
`a specifically identified argument or portion of an exhibit. No observation should
`exceed a single, short paragraph. The opposing party may respond to the motion
`for observation. Any response must be equally concise and specific.
`
`B. 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, and, if
`either party anticipates the need to alter Due Date 7, the parties shall seek jointly to
`schedule a conference call with the panel immediately upon the identification any
`conflict or potential conflict with Due Date 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) (Each
`party “must designate a lead counsel and a back-up counsel who can conduct
`business on behalf of the lead counsel.”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48,758 (“[T]he role of back-up counsel is to conduct business with the
`Office on behalf of lead counsel when lead counsel is not available.”).
`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.
`1. DUE DATE 1
`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).
`Patent Owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE DATE 1.
`If Patent Owner elects not to file anything, Patent Owner must arrange a
`conference call with the parties and the Board. Patent Owner is cautioned that any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.
`2. DUE DATE 2
`Petitioner must file any reply to Patent Owner’s response and opposition to
`the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`3. DUE DATE 32
`Patent Owner must file any reply to Petitioner’s opposition to Patent
`Owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`
`2 Please be advised that if no Motions to Amend are filed in these proceedings, Due
`Date 3 is moot, and the panel may advance Due Dates 4–7 sua sponte.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`
`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 A.7, above) by DUE
`DATE 4.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`b.
`§ 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE
`DATE 4.
`5. DUE DATE 5
`a.
`Each party must file any reply to a Petitioner 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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ... ........ 2:00 PM ET on February 8, 2016
`
`DUE DATE 1 .............................................................................. April 6, 2016
`Patent Owner’s response to the Petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ................................................................................ July 6, 2016
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to the Petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ........................................................................... August 8, 2016
`Patent Owner’s reply to Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ......................................................................... August 29, 2016
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................... September 12, 2016
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ................................................................... September 19, 2016
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ......................................................................... October 3, 2016
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`Samsung-PUMA-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Rajeev Gupta
`Darren M. Jiron
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`LGE_Finnegan_PUMAIPR@finnegan.com
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Stephen M. Everett
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`stephen.everett@sidley.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Masood Anjom
`Alisa Lipski
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`manjom@azalaw.com
`alipski@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
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
