Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: June 2, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: June 2, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`A.
`No initial conference call is scheduled for this case. The parties are
`encouraged to contact the Board to request a call if any issues arise during
`trial. The parties are directed to the following matters:
`Confidential Information
`1.
`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.
`A protective order does not take effect until a protective order is filed
`in the case and 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. See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties propose
`a protective order deviating from the default protective order, they should
`submit the proposed 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 differences are highlighted. The parties should
`contact the Board if they cannot agree on the terms of the proposed
`protective order.
`
`Redactions
`a.
`Redactions should be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting of
`confidential information. The thrust of the underlying argument or evidence
`must be discernable from the redacted version.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`Confidential Information in Final Written Decision
`b.
`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 Practices Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761.
`
`B. 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 Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,772 (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.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`DUE DATE 1
`1.
`The patent owner may file a response to the petition (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.120). The patent owner must file any such response 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.
`DUE DATE 2
`2.
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response by
`DUE DATE 2.
`DUE DATE 3
`3.
`a. Each party must file any motion for an observation on the cross-
`examination testimony of a 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.
`DUE DATE 4
`4.
`a. Each party must file any reply 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 5.
`DUE DATE 5
`5.
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 5.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`DUE DATE 6
`6.
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 6.
`CROSS-EXAMINATION
`C.
`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.
`D. 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 witness, since no further substantive paper is
`permitted after the reply. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at
`48,768. 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 parties may respond to the observation. Any response must be equally
`concise and specific.
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`
`DUE DATE 1……………….……………………………..September 2, 2016
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`
`DUE DATE 2………………………………………….…...December 2, 2016
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner response to petition
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 3…….………………………………..……..December 23, 2016
`
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of a witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`
`DUE DATE 4…….……..…………………..……..…………January 6, 2017
`
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 5…….……………………………..…………...January 13, 2017
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`DUE DATE 6….……………..………………………..…...February 16, 2017
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John Flock
`George Badenoch
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`jflock@kenyon.com
`gbadenoch@kenyon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`Jason A. LaBerteaux
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
` 7
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
