Trials@uspto.gov
`571–272–7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: April 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`Case IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
` Case IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`1 This Scheduling Order addresses issues that are identical in these three
`cases. We, therefore, exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in
`each of the three cases. The parties are not authorized to use this heading
`style in their papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571–272–7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: April 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`Case IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
` Case IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`1 This Scheduling Order addresses issues that are identical in these three
`cases. We, therefore, exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in
`each of the three cases. The parties are not authorized to use this heading
`style in their papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 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. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 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. A party filing a document or thing to
`be sealed shall file a motion to seal concurrent with the filing of the
`document or thing to be sealed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. However, the party
`who asserts that the document or thing is confidential bears the burden of
`proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief, i.e., sealing of the
`document or thing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Therefore, if the party who
`asserts confidentiality is not the party who filed the document or thing, the
`party who asserts confidentiality shall file its own motion to seal within
`seven days after the document or thing to be sealed was filed.
`If the entity whose confidential information is filed is not a party to
`this proceeding, i.e., the confidential information is that of a third party,
`then, the proffering party is responsible for (1) obtaining the fully-informed
`consent of the third party to use its information in this proceeding with the
`knowledge of the risks associated with the submission of the information to
`the Board, and (2) filing the motion to seal. The party that is responsible for
`filing the motion to seal has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled
`to the requested relief, i.e., sealing of the documents. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`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 encouraged to agree to and file the Board’s default
`protective order, should that become necessary. See Default Protective
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)
`
`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
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)
`
`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.
`
`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 to an opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence by DUE DATE 6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)
`
`8. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7. If oral argument is requested by a party, an order will be issued
`with a specific time on the date indicated.
`
`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. 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, a conference call with the panel must be held before filing any
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)
`
`Motion to Amend. We strongly encourage the parties to request and arrange
`a conference call with us no less than ten (10) business days prior to DUE
`DATE 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL .............................................. Upon Request
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................. July 21, 2016
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ...................................................................... October 21, 2016
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 .................................................................. November 21, 2016
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ................................................................... December 12, 2016
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................... December 29, 2016
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ......................................................................... January 5, 2017
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ....................................................................... January 12, 2017
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00095 (Patent 5,943,260)
`IPR2016-00096 (Patent 6,233,181 B1)
`IPR2016-00097 (Patent 6,697,296 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Justin L. Constant
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`jason.lang@weil.com
`justin.constant@weil.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas T. Peters
`Paul B. Henkelmann
`FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`LimestoneIPR@fitcheven.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
