`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: April 6, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. and
`ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2016-00646 (Patent 5,870,087)
`IPR2016-00647 (Patent 6,430,148 B1)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues pertaining to both cases. Thus, we exercise
`our discretion to issue a single order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00646 (Patent 5,870,087)
`IPR2016-00647 (Patent 6,430,148 B1)
`
`
`A conference call in the above proceedings was held on April 4, 2017,
`between respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and Judges
`Scanlon and Lee. Petitioner initiated the conference call to discuss a
`potential scheduling conflict regarding the date for oral argument.
`In each of these proceedings, we issued a Scheduling Order setting an
`oral argument date of May 9, 2017. Paper 12 (IPR2016-00646); Paper 8
`(IPR2016-00647). During the conference call, Petitioner indicated that lead
`counsel of record in these proceedings has a scheduling conflict regarding
`the oral argument. Specifically, lead counsel was expected to attend an
`important “all hands internal business meeting” for another client occurring
`on May 9, 2017. Petitioner explained that efforts to reschedule this meeting
`were not successful. Accordingly, Petitioner requested that the oral
`argument for these proceedings be rescheduled. Patent Owner did not
`oppose this request. Both parties indicated they would be available May
`15–18 should the panel decide to reschedule.
`The Board does not take requests to reschedule hearings lightly, given
`the complexities involved in scheduling hearings in our forum, particularly
`in the later stages of a proceeding. In this instance, however, the Board’s
`hearing room schedule, as well as the schedules of the judges empaneled for
`these proceedings, are amenable to rescheduling. Furthermore, the
`requested change would not jeopardize the Board’s ability to meet the strict
`statutory timeline on which inter partes review proceedings are conducted.
`For these reasons, Petitioner’s request to reschedule oral argument for
`these proceedings is granted. The Board hereby reschedules oral argument
`in these proceedings to be held on May 17, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00646 (Patent 5,870,087)
`IPR2016-00647 (Patent 6,430,148 B1)
`
`
`Therefore, it is
`ORDERED that oral argument in IPR2016-00646 and IPR2016-
`00647 is rescheduled for May 17, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00646 (Patent 5,870,087)
`IPR2016-00647 (Patent 6,430,148 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Christopher TL Douglas
`christopher.douglas@alston.com
`
`Derek S. Neilson
`derek.neilson@alston.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Jeffrey M. Connor
`jmconner@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`4
`
`
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
