`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: November 8, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)1
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 The issues are the same in each of the proceedings listed above. We,
`therefore, issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`
`On November 3, 2016, a conference call was held between counsel
`for the parties and Judges Petravick, Daniels, and Quinn. Patent Owner
`requested the call to discuss the length and scheduling of the deposition of
`Dr. Kakaes and changes to DUE DATES 1, 2, and 3 of the Scheduling
`Order. This Order summarizes the conference call.
`
`The parties dispute whether the duration of Patent Owner’s cross-
`examination of Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Kakaes, should be 7 or 14 hours,
`total for these proceedings. Patent Owner argued that it was entitled to 14
`hours pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c)(2) because the proceedings have not
`been joined. Petitioners argued that cross-examination should be limited to
`7 hours because of substantially similarities between the proceedings.
`
`Rule 42.53(c)(2) states that cross-examination is limited to seven
`hours, unless otherwise ordered by the Board. After consideration of the
`information presented during the call, the Board ordered that the cross-
`examination of Dr. Kakaes is limited to 10 hours total for both proceedings.
`The Petitions in these proceedings challenged the same five claims of U.S.
`Patent No. 5,659,891 under substantially the same grounds and with
`substantially the same evidence and analysis. Dr. Kakaes’s declarations are
`substantially the same. Thus, good cause exists to limit the duration Dr.
`Kakaes’ cross-examination to 10 hours.
`
`Patent Owner also indicated that the parties had not come to an
`agreement as to whether the cross-examination of Dr. Kakaes would take
`place over one day or two days. In addition, Patent Owner indicated that the
`parties agreed to stipulate to later dates for Due Dates 1, 2, and 3, but had
`not come to an agreement as to the exact dates. Petitioner indicated that they
`were willing to continue discussing these scheduling issues with Patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`Owner. The Board stated that the parties should meet and confer after the
`conference call.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that the cross-examination of Dr. Kakaes is limited to 10
`hours total for both proceedings.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Charles Griggers
`Dan Gresham
`Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP
`charles.griggers@thomashorstemeyer.com
`dan.gresham@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kelly L. Kasha Kasha Law LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`3
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
