`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Entered: August 23, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY KOREA
`CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`Case IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in all four cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of the four cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`On August 18, 2016, we received an email correspondence from
`Petitioner, LG Electronics, Incorporated and LG Electronics, U.S.A,
`Incorporated (collectively, “LG”), requesting a conference call to seek
`authorization to file a motion to reschedule the oral argument in each of the
`proceedings identified above. According to LG, the oral argument for these
`proceedings is scheduled on October 4, 2016, during the religious holiday of
`Rosh Hashanah. LG represented that, because Rosh Hashanah does not end
`until nightfall on October 4, 2016, back-up counsel for LG will not be able
`to participate in the oral argument. LG further represented that Patent
`Owner, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation
`(“Samsung”), does not oppose its request to reschedule the oral argument.
`After meeting and conferring, the parties proposed the following two
`alternative dates for the oral argument: (1) October 6, 2016 and (2) October
`13, 2016.
`Upon receiving the email correspondence from LG, we checked with
`the Board’s Administrative Staff to determine if there were any hearing
`rooms available on the two alternative dates proposed by the parties. We
`were notified that the only hearing room available for use was in the
`Alexandria campus on October 6, 2016. We then notified the parties via
`email that, based on the particular circumstances presented here, LG’s
`request to reschedule the oral argument in these cases is granted, and the
`date of the oral argument would be reset to October 6, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that LG’s request to reschedule the oral argument in these
`cases is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that DUE DATE 7, the date of the oral
`argument for these proceedings, is reset to October 6, 2016.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Michael V. Battaglia
`Soumya P. Panda
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`btollefson@rothwellfigg.com
`mbattaglia@rothwellfigg.com
`spanda@rothwellfigg.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Jonathan A. Roberts
`Nixon & Vanderhye P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`jr@nixonvan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4