`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 3
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`JOHNSON SAFETY, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VOXX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274
`____________
`
`Mailed: May 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Before Amy Kattula, 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 19, 2016.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274
`
`
`If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please contact
`
`Amy Kattula at 571-272-5826 or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at
`
`3
`
`571-272-7822.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Gregory Howison
`ghowison@dalpat.com
`
`Keith Harden
`kharden@dalpat.com
`
`John Arnott
`jarnott@dalpat.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`F. Chau & Associates, LLC
`130 Woodbury Road
`Woodbury, NY 11797
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274
`
`
`AMERICAN
`INTELLECT
`UAL
`PROPERTY
`LAW
`ASSOCIATI
`ON (AIPLA)
`Telephone:
`(703) 415-
`0780
`Fax: (703)
`415-0786
`241 18th
`Street, South,
`Suite 700
`Arlington, VA
`22202
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 949-
`6490
`Fax: (212)
`949-8859
`
`575 Lexington
`Ave
`York,
`New
`NY 10022
`
`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
`RESOLUTIO
`N
`
`AMERICA
`N
`ARBITRA
`TION
`ASSOCIAT
`ION (AAA)
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 484-
`3266
`Fax: (212)
`307-4387
`
`140 West
`51st Street
`
`New York,
`NY 10020
`
`WORLD
`INTELLEC
`TUAL
`PROPERTY
`ORGANIZA
`TION
`(WIPO)
`Telephone:
`41 22 338
`9111
`Fax: 41 22
`733 5428
`34, chemin
`des
`Colombettes
`CH-1211
`Geneva 20,
`Switzerland
`
`AMERICAN
`BAR
`ASSOCIATI
`ON
`(ABA)
`
`Telephone :
`(202) 662-
`1000
`
`N/A
`1050
`Connecticut
`Ave, NW
`Washington
`D.C. 20036
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01070
`Patent 7,245,274
`
`www.cpradr.o
`rg
`
`www.aipla.org
`
`www.adr.or
`g
`
`www.wipo.int
`
`www.american
`bar.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 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
`address:
`PTAB_ADR_Comments@uspto.gov
`
`5