Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: February 9, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01645
`Patent 7,397,363
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: February 9, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01645
`Patent 7,397,363
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01645
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`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 4 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 5). A notice of the
`stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly filed.
`The parties may not stipulate to an extension of DUE DATES 5 and 6.
`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 parties are reminded that 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. 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.
`
`1.
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`
`The parties are directed to contact the Board within a month of this order if
`there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling Order or proposed
`motions. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (guidance in preparing for an initial conference call).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01645
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`2.
`
`DUE DATE 1
`
`The patent owner may file a response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120).
`
`3. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response by DUE
`DATE 2.
`
`4. DUE DATE 3
`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 3.
`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 3.
`
`5. DUE DATE 4
`a.
`Each party must file any response to an observation on cross-
`examination testimony by DUE DATE 4.
`b.
`Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude evidence
`by DUE DATE 4.
`
`6. DUE DATE 5
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by DUE
`DATE 5.
`
`7. DUE DATE 6
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE DATE 6.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01645
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`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 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01645
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ...................................... UPON REQUEST
`
`DUE DATE 1 .............................................................................. May 9, 2016
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`DUE DATE 2 .......................................................................... August 8, 2016
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`
`DUE DATE 3 ..................................................................... September 8, 2016
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................. September 29, 2016
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 5 ......................................................................... October 6, 2016
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ...................................................................... October 20, 2016
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01645
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`D. Clay Holloway
`Alton L. Absher III
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`aabsher@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Raymond A. Joao
`rayjoao@optonline.net
`
`René A. Vazquez
`HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
`rvazquez@hgdlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
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
