`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 25
`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:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Megan F. Raymond
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
` megan.raymond@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kelly L. Kasha Kasha Law LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`3