`Entered: January 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SANTA’S BEST,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VARIABLE LIGHTING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`____________
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`On January 26, 2017, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Extend Due Date for
`filing Patent Owner’s response to the petition and motion to amend. Paper 14.
`Patent Owner states in its motion that the parties have reached a settlement in
`principle and expect the finalization of the agreement will be completed in a few
`days. Id.
`The Scheduling Order for this proceeding sets forth various due dates for the
`parties to take action after institution. Paper 11, 5–8. In particular, the Scheduling
`Order sets forth that Patent Owner’s response and motion to amend must be filed
`by DUE DATE 1. Id. at 5–6. The Scheduling Order also authorizes the parties to
`stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1 through 5. Id. at 5. We require that
`a notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, be
`promptly filed. Id.
`Patent Owner represents that Petitioner agrees to the extension. Paper 14.
`Because the parties were authorized to stipulate to a different due date for DUE
`DATE 1, and in light of Patent Owner’s representation that the request is
`unopposed, we treat the Motion to Extend as a Notice of Stipulation to extend
`DUE DATE 1 to February 6, 2017. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss the Motion to
`Extend as moot. In the event a settlement agreement is not concluded, Patent
`Owner is reminded of the requirement to confer with the Board before filing a
`Motion to Amend and to arrange for a conference call with the panel and opposing
`counsel at least one week before DUE DATE 1. See id. at 3.
`Our rules provide that the parties may agree to settle any issue in a
`proceeding pursuant to a written agreement, a copy of which shall be filed with the
`Board before termination of the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a)–(b). Any agreement or
`understanding between the patent owner and a petitioner, including any collateral
`agreements referred to in such agreement or understanding made in connection
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`with, or in contemplation of, the termination of inter partes review shall be in
`writing and a true copy of such agreement or understanding shall be filed in the
`Office before the termination of such review as between the parties. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(b). Should the parties reach a settlement and wish to file a motion to
`terminate this proceeding, we remind the parties to seek prior authorization for the
`motion as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b).
`It is
`ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Due Date is dismissed as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`John H. Curry
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`jasone-ptab@skgf.com
`jcurry-ptab@skgf.com
`
`William W. Cochran
`COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC
`billc@patentlegal.com
`
`Dustin B. Weeks
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`dustin.weeks@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Padmaja Chinta
`Andrew Berks
`CITTONE & CHINTA LLP
`pchinta@cittonechinta.com
`andrew@berksiplaw.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`