throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: December 12, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01159
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, DAVID C. MCKONE, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01159
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`A. DUE DATES
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate to different dates for DUE
`DATES 1 through 5 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 6). A
`notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must
`be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate to an extension of DUE
`DATES 6 and 7.
`In stipulating to different times, the parties should consider the effect
`of the stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)), to
`supplement evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-
`examination (37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the
`evidence and cross-examination testimony (see section B, below).
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix D), apply to this proceeding. The Board may
`impose an appropriate sanction for failure to adhere to the Testimony
`Guidelines. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For example, reasonable expenses and
`attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who
`impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
`
`1. INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`An initial conference call is not scheduled in this case. A party may
`request an initial conference call within 25 days after the institution of trial.
`A party requesting an initial conference call shall: (a) identify the proposed
`motions, if any, to be discussed during the call; and (b) propose two or more
`dates and times when both parties are available for the call. When an initial
`conference call is scheduled in response to a request, the parties are directed
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01159
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66
`(Aug. 14, 2012), for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call and
`should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the schedule in this
`proceeding.
`
`2. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file a response to the petition (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.120). The patent owner must file any such response by DUE DATE 1.
`If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner must arrange
`a conference call with the parties and the Board. The patent owner is
`cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will
`be deemed waived.
`Note that, because the ’657 patent is expired, no motion to amend the
`patent may be filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.
`
`3. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response by
`DUE DATE 2.
`
`4. DUE DATE 3
`Because the ’657 patent is expired, and no motion to amend the patent
`may be filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121, DUE DATE 3 is not applicable to
`this proceeding.
`
`5. DUE DATE 4
`a.
`Each party must file any motion for an observation on the
`cross-examination testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01159
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`b.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`
`6. DUE DATE 5
`a.
`Each party must file any response to an observation on cross-
`examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`b.
`Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence by DUE DATE 5.
`
`7. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`8. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7.
`
`B. CROSS-EXAMINATION
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1.
`Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is
`due. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`2.
`Cross-examination ends no later than a week before the filing
`date for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to
`be used. See id.
`
`C. MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`A motion for observation on cross-examination provides the parties
`with a mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01159
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`examination testimony of a reply witness because no further substantive
`paper is permitted after the reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. at 48,768. The observation must be a concise statement of the
`relevance of precisely identified testimony to a precisely identified argument
`or portion of an exhibit. Each observation should not exceed a single, short
`paragraph. The opposing party may respond to the observation. Any
`response must be equally concise and specific.
`
`D. MOTION TO AMEND
`As stated above, because the ’657 patent is expired, no motion to
`amend the patent may be filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 .
`
`G. PROTECTIVE ORDER
`A protective order will not be entered in this proceeding unless the
`parties file one and the Board approves it. The parties are encouraged to
`adopt the Board’s default protective order if a protective order is necessary.
`See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. at 48,769 (App. B). If the parties choose to propose a protective order
`deviating from the default protective order, they must submit the proposed
`protective order along with a marked-up comparison of the proposed and
`default protective orders showing the differences. If either party files a
`motion to seal before entry of a protective order, a proposed protective order
`should be presented as an exhibit to the motion that has been discussed with
`the opposing party and, preferably, be jointly proposed. If the protective
`order is not jointly proposed, the proponent of the order should identify
`where the parties differ in the proposed language of the order.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01159
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 .......................................................................... March 13, 2017
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`DUE DATE 2 .............................................................................. June 12, 2017
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`
`DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................ Not applicable
`
`DUE DATE 4 ........................................................................... August 2, 2017
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ......................................................................... August 16, 2017
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ......................................................................... August 23, 2017
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 .................................................................... September 6, 2017
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01159
`Patent 8,694,657 B1
`PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi Keefe
`Phillip Morton
`Andrew Mace
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`pmorton@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Vincent Rubino
`Peter Lambrianakos
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`7
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket