`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
`
`
`
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
