`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ Delta, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956
`____________
`
`Mailed: May 12, 2016
`
`Before Alexander C. Levy, Trial Paralegal
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION
`AND
`TIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`The petition for “inter partes review,” filed in the above proceeding
`has been accorded the filing date of May 6, 2016.
`A review of the petition identified the following defect:
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956
`Petitioner failed to label Exhibit 1001 properly. See 37 C.F.R. §
`42.63(d). Correction is required. Petitioner may submit a written request to
`trials@uspto.gov to have this exhibit expunged specifically identifying the
`exhibit to be expunged (e.g., by the name given to the exhibit in the Patent
`Review Processing System (PRPS) and/or by the date the exhibit was filed).
`Petitioner must correct this defect within FIVE BUSINESS DAYS
`from this notice. Failure to correct the defect may result in an order to show
`cause as to why the Board should institute the trial. No substantive changes
`(e.g., new grounds) may be made to the petition.
`Patent Owner may file a preliminary response to the petition no later
`than three months from the date of this notice. The preliminary response is
`limited to setting forth the reasons why the requested review should not be
`instituted. Patent Owner may also file an election to waive the preliminary
`response to expedite the proceeding. For more information, please consult
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012),
`which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
`Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory
`notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of
`the petition.
`The parties are encouraged to use the heading on the first page of this
`Notice for all future filings in the proceeding.
`The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of
`counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause. The parties are
`authorized to file motions for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c). Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order --
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956
`Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.”
`The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the
`Patent Review Processing System (PRPS), accessible from the Board Web
`site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB. To file documents, users must first
`obtain a user ID and password by registering with PRPS. Information
`regarding how to register with and use PRPS is available at the Board Web
`site.
`
`If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please contact
`Alexander C. Levy at 571-272-0382 or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at
`571-272-7822.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Theodore M. Foster
`Gregory P. Huh
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason H. Vick
`Sheridan Ross, PC
`1560 Broadway, Suite # 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956
`NOTICE CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
`(ADR)
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) strongly encourages parties
`who are considering settlement to consider alternative dispute resolution as a
`means of settling the issues that may be raised in an AIA trial proceeding.
`Many AIA trials are settled prior to a Final Written Decision. Those
`considering settlement may wish to consider alternative dispute resolution
`techniques early in a proceeding to produce a quicker, mutually agreeable
`resolution of a dispute or to at least narrow the scope of matters in dispute.
`Alternative dispute resolution has the potential to save parties time and
`money.
`
`Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual
`property field, offer alternative dispute resolution services. Listed below are
`the names and addresses of several such organizations. The listings are
`provided for the convenience of parties involved in cases before the PTAB;
`the PTAB does not sponsor or endorse any particular organization’s
`alternative dispute resolution services. In addition, consideration may be
`given to utilizing independent alternative dispute resolution firms. Such firms
`may be located through a standard keyword Internet search.
`
`
`
`CPR
`INSTITUTE
`FOR DISPUTE
`RESOLUTION
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 949-6490
`Fax: (212) 949-8859
`
`575 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`
`AMERICAN
`INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY
`LAW
`ASSOCIATION
`(AIPLA)
`Telephone:
`(703) 415-0780
`Fax: (703) 415-0786
`241 18th Street, South,
`Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22202
`
`www.cpradr.org
`
`www.aipla.org
`
`AMERICAN
`ARBITRATIO
`N
`ASSOCIATIO
`N (AAA)
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 484-3266
`Fax: (212) 307-4387
`140 West 51st
`Street
`New York, NY
`10020
`www.adr.org
`
`WORLD
`INTELLECTUA
`L PROPERTY
`ORGANIZATI
`ON (WIPO)
`Telephone:
`41 22 338 9111
`Fax: 41 22 733 5428
`34, chemin des
`Colombettes
`CH-1211 Geneva 20,
`Switzerland
`www.wipo.int
`
`AMERICAN
`BAR
`ASSOCIATION
`(ABA)
`
`Telephone :
`(202) 662-1000
`N/A
`1050 Connecticut Ave,
`NW
`Washington D.C. 20036
`
`www.americanbar.org
`
`
`If parties to an AIA trial proceeding consider using alternative dispute
`
`resolution, the PTAB would like to know whether the parties ultimately
`decided to engage in alternative dispute resolution and the reasons why or why
`not. If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB
`would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, mediation,
`etc.) was used and the general result. Such a statement from the parties is not
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956
`required but would be helpful to the PTAB in assessing the value of alternative
`dispute resolution to parties involved in AIA trial proceedings. To report an
`experience with ADR, please forward a summary of the particulars to the
`following email address: PTAB_ADR_Comments@uspto.gov.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`