`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 15
`Entered: January 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`Case IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`Case IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464)
`Case IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`Case IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)1
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and SUSAN L. MITCHELL,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in all five cases. We,
`therefore, exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers without prior approval of the Board.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753); IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464); IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`
`An initial conference call in the above proceeding was held on
`
`January 9, 2017, between respective counsel for the parties, and Judges
`
`Zecher, Arpin, Clements, and Mitchell.
`
`Prior to the call, neither party filed a proposed motions list. On the
`
`call, each party confirmed that, at this time, it does not anticipate filing any
`
`motions not already authorized by our Rules or in the Scheduling Order.
`
`Each party also confirmed that it does not have any issue with Due
`
`Dates 1–6 as currently set, but Petitioner raised the possibility of
`
`accelerating Due Dates 1–7 in order to synchronize these cases with Apple
`
`Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture, Case IPR2016-00923
`
`(addressing U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789), and Apple Inc. v. Parthenon Unified
`
`Memory Architecture, Case IPR2016-00924 (addressing U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,960,464). Patent Owner informed us that Petitioner had not raised this
`
`possibility with Patent Owner prior to the call. We instructed the parties to
`
`meet and confer.2 To the extent the parties can agree to changes to Due
`
`Dates 1–5, they simply may file a Notice of Stipulation to changes to Due
`
`Dates 1–5, as provided in the Scheduling Order. If the parties agree to
`
`proposed changes to Due Dates 6 and 7, they should request a call with the
`
`panel to discuss changing those dates.
`
`For now, with respect to Due Date 7, each party confirmed that it has
`
`no conflict with scheduling the oral argument, if requested, on September 5,
`
`
`2 For future reference, the parties shall meet and confer prior to raising any
`issue during a conference call with the Board. Failure to do so may result in
`summary denial of the request. Repeated failure to meet and confer may
`result in sanctions.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753); IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464); IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`2017. Also, both parties expressed a preference for conducting the hearing
`
`in Alexandria, Virginia, followed by San Jose, California, followed by
`
`Denver, Colorado. The panel has determined that a hearing room in
`
`Alexandria, Virginia, is available on September 5, 2017. Thus, pending
`
`receipt of timely party requests for a hearing, it appears at this time that we
`
`will be able to accommodate the parties’ preference to conduct the hearing
`
`in Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Due Date 7 is set to September 5, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753); IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464); IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David W. O’Brien
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Masood Anjom
`Scott Clark
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`manjom@azalaw.com
`sclark@azalaw.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
