Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date Entered: February 8, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC., ERICSSON INC., AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01708
`Case IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B21
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date Entered: February 8, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC., ERICSSON INC., AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01708
`Case IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B21
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01708; IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`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 5 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 6). 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 6 and 7.
`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. See 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
`decision 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. at 48,765–66 (guidance in preparing for the initial conference call).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01708; IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`a. Confidential Information
`The parties must file confidential information using the appropriate
`availability indicator in PRPS (e.g., “Board and Parties Only”), regardless of
`whose confidential information it is. It is the responsibility of the party
`whose confidential information is at issue, not necessarily the proffering
`party, to file the motion to seal, unless the party whose confidential
`information is at issue is not a party to this proceeding.
`A protective order does not exist in a case until one is filed in the case
`and is approved by the Board. If a motion to seal is filed by either party, the
`proposed protective order should be presented as an exhibit to the motion.
`The parties are urged to operate under the Board’s default protective
`order, should that become necessary. See Default Protective Order, Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,769–71, App. B.
`If the parties choose to propose a protective order deviating from the
`default protective order, they should submit the proposed protective order
`jointly. A marked-up comparison of the proposed and default protective
`orders should be presented as an additional exhibit to the motion to seal, so
`that difference can be understood readily. The parties should contact the
`Board if they cannot agree on the terms of the proposed protective order.
`
`Redactions
`b.
`Redactions should be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting
`entirely of confidential information. The thrust of the underlying argument
`or evidence must be clearly discernable from the redacted version.
`
`Confidential Information in Final Written Decisions
`c.
`Information subject to a protective order will become public if
`identified in a final written decision in this proceeding. A motion to
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01708; IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over the public interest
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history. See Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761.
`
`2. 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.
`
`3. 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.
`
`4. 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.
`
`5. 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01708; IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`6. 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.
`
`7. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`8. 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. See 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. See 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-
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01708; IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`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 48,767–68. 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.
`
`D. MOTION TO AMEND
`
`Although the filing of a Motion to Amend is authorized under our
`Rules, Patent Owner must confer with us before filing any Motion to
`Amend. We strongly encourage the parties to arrange for a conference call
`with us no less than ten (10) business days prior to DUE DATE 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01708; IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL .............................................. Upon Request
`
`DUE DATE 1 .............................................................................. May 9, 2016
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 .......................................................................... August 8, 2016
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 .................................................................... September 8, 2016
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................. September 29, 2016
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ...................................................................... October 13, 2016
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ...................................................................... October 20, 2016
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ................................................................ November 8–9, 2016
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2015-01708; IPR2015-01711
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brian W. Oaks
`Douglas M. Kubehl
`Chad C. Walters
`Ross G. Culpepper
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`doug.kubehl@bakerbotts.com
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com
`ross.culpepper@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Sean Luner
`DOVEL AND LUNER, LLP
`sean@dovellaw.com
`
`Steven C. Sereboff
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP.
`ssereboff@.socalip.com
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
