Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 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
`
`An initial conference call is not scheduled in this case. A party may
`
`request an initial conference call within 25 days after the institution of trial.
`
`A party requesting an initial conference call shall: (a) identify the proposed
`
`motions, if any, to be discussed during the call; and (b) propose two or more
`
`dates and times when both parties are available for the call. When an initial
`
`conference call is scheduled in response to a request, the parties are directed
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`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 the schedule in this
`
`proceeding.
`
` We note the following guidance given to the parties during an initial
`
`conference call in co-pending inter partes review between the parties, LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Case IPR2015-01983
`
`(PTAB Mar. 18, 2016) (Paper 10):
`
`The parties should not to use the Motion to Exclude for any purpose
`
`other than to raise admissibility issues under the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence. If an issue arises with regard to a paper being out
`
`of proper scope, e.g., belatedly raising new issues or belatedly
`
`submitting new evidence, the parties shall contact the Board in
`
`a timely manner to raise the matter.
`
`Supplemental evidence is not the same as supplemental information,
`
`and that the rules do not contemplate more than one cycle of
`
`objection to evidence and subsequent supplemental evidence to
`
`cure the objection.
`
`A motion for Observation on Cross-Examination should not be
`
`argumentative and that the entry for each identified item is
`
`limited to one short paragraph. It does not mean that arguments
`
`can be presented so long as they are less than one short
`
`paragraph in length. Also, circumventing the length
`
`requirement by use of footnote is inappropriate.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`2. DUE DATE 1
`
`The patent owner may file—
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`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-
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`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
`
`
`
`The parties are reminded that 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 was amended
`
`effective May 19, 2015, and that the page limits that pertain to motions to
`
`amend are as follows: any motion to amend is limited to 25 pages;
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to any motion to amend is limited to 25 pages; and
`
`Patent Owner’s reply to the opposition to any motion to amend is limited to
`
`12 pages. 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)–(c). The claim listing does not count
`
`towards the page limit for a motion to amend, and may be contained in an
`
`appendix. 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`Consistent with the guidance given the parties in IPR2015-01983,
`
`Paper 10, supra, if Patent Owner decides to file a motion to amend claims, it
`
`must request a conference call with the Board more than two weeks prior to
`
`the due date of such a motion, so that a conference call may be arranged at
`
`least two weeks prior to the due date of such a motion and so that the parties
`
`will have sufficient time to consider any guidance we may provide. With
`
`respect to any feature Patent Owner proposes to add by way of a substitute
`
`claim, Patent Owner should be aware of the duty of candor requirement
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.11. The initial focus should be on the individual
`
`features proposed to be added, and secondary references making up
`
`deficiencies of a primary reference are pertinent. We direct attention of the
`
`parties to MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., Case IPR2015-00040, slip op.
`
`at 3 (PTAB July 15, 2015) (Paper 42) (Representative), which states:
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`Thus, when considering its duty of candor and good faith under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.11 in connection with a proposed amendment,
`Patent Owner should place initial emphasis on each added
`limitation. Information about the added limitation can still be
`material even if it does not include all of the rest of the claim
`limitations. See VMWare, Inc. v. Clouding Corp., Case
`IPR2014-01292, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Apr. 7, 2015) (Paper 23)
`(“With respect to the duty of candor under 37 C.F.R. § 42.11,
`counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged a duty for Patent Owner
`to disclose not just the closest primary reference, but also closest
`secondary reference(s) the teachings of which sufficiently
`complement that of the closest primary reference to be
`material.”).
`
`E. PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c), Petitioner’s reply brief to patent
`
`owner response is limited to 25 pages.
`
`F. FORMAT AND FILING OF DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`The parties are reminded that 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 was amended effective
`
`May 19, 2015, and now requires the use of 14-point, Times New Roman
`
`proportional font, with normal spacing. The parties should familiarize
`
`themselves with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6. Any filing that does
`
`not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 may be expunged.
`
`G. PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`A protective order will not be entered in this proceeding unless the
`
`parties file one and the Board approves it. The parties are encouraged to
`
`adopt the Board’s default protective order if a protective order is necessary.
`
`See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 48,769 (App. B). If the parties choose to propose a protective order
`
`deviating from the default protective order, they must submit the proposed
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`protective order along with a marked-up comparison of the proposed and
`
`default protective orders showing the differences. If either party files a
`
`motion to seal before entry of a protective order, a proposed protective order
`
`should be presented as an exhibit to the motion that has been discussed with
`
`the opposing party and, preferably, be jointly proposed. If the protective
`
`order is not jointly proposed, the proponent of the order should identify
`
`where the parties differ in the proposed language of the order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ................................................................................... 6/27/2016
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 .................................................................................... 9/20/2016
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ................................................................................. 10/20/2016
`
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ................................................................................. 11/10/2016
`
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................................. 11/28/2016
`
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 .................................................................................. 12/5/2016
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ................................................................................ 12/14/2016
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01986
`Patent 8,165,049 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Herbert Finn
`Richard Harris
`Eric Maiers
`Joshua Brown
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@gtlaw.com
`harrisr@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`brownjr@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`Holly Atkinson
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`10
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
