`Entered: December 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`____________
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and PETER P. CHEN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`1. Initial Conference Call
` An initial conference call is optional; the parties are directed to contact the
`Board within a month of this decision to schedule an initial conference call only if
`there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling Order or proposed
`motions. The parties are directed 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 this
`Scheduling Order and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`2. Protective Order
`A protective order does not exist in this proceeding unless the parties file
`one and the Board approves it. If either party files a motion to seal before entry of
`a protective order, a jointly proposed protective order should be presented as an
`exhibit to the motion. We encourage the parties to adopt the Board’s default
`protective order if they conclude that a protective order is necessary. See Default
`Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B
`(Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties choose to propose a protective order deviating from
`the default protective order, they must submit the proposed protective order jointly
`along with a marked-up comparison of the proposed and default protective orders
`showing the differences.
`The Board has a strong interest in the public availability of the proceedings.
`We advise the parties that redactions to documents filed in this proceeding should
`be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting entirely of confidential
`information, and that the thrust of the underlying argument or evidence must be
`clearly discernible from the redacted versions. We also advise the parties that
`information subject to a protective order will become public if identified in a final
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`written decision in this proceeding, and that a motion to expunge the information
`will not necessarily prevail over the public interest in maintaining a complete and
`understandable file history. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at
`48,761.
`3. Motions to Amend
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization from the
`Board. Nevertheless, Patent Owner must confer with the Board before filing such a
`motion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Patent Owner should arrange for a conference
`call with the panel and opposing counsel at least one week before DUE DATE 1 in
`order to satisfy the conferral requirement. We direct the parties to the Board’s
`website for representative decisions relating to Motions to Amend among other
`topics. The parties may access these representative decisions at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_orders_and_opinions.jsp.
`4. Discovery Disputes
`The panel encourages parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery on
`their own and in accordance with the precepts set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). To
`the extent that a dispute arises between the parties relating to discovery, the parties
`shall meet and confer to resolve such a dispute before contacting the Board. If
`attempts to resolve the dispute fail, a party may request a conference call with the
`Board and the other party in order to seek authorization to move for relief.
`5. Depositions
`The parties are advised 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For
`example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a
`witness.
`Whenever a party submits a deposition transcript as an exhibit in this
`proceeding, the submitting party shall file the full transcript of the deposition rather
`than excerpts of only those portions being cited. After a deposition transcript has
`been submitted as an exhibit, all parties who subsequently cite to portions of the
`transcript shall cite to the first-filed exhibit rather than submitting another copy of
`the same transcript.
`6. Cross-Examination
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1.
`Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is due.
`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. Id.
`7. 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-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. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14,
`2012). 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`8. Location of Oral Argument
`The panel is available to hear oral argument, if requested, at the USPTO in
`the Alexandria, Virginia office. If the parties wish for the oral hearing to occur at
`another USPTO office in either Denver, Colorado or San Jose, California, they
`may confer and notify the Board of their preference, as soon as practicable. It
`would be appreciated if the parties would also indicate how many people they
`expect to be present at the hearing for each side. The Board may not be able to
`honor the parties’ preference of hearing location due to the availability of hearing
`room resources. In addition, if the parties are unable to reach agreement on a
`hearing location, the Board shall determine the hearing location and will thereafter
`notify the parties accordingly.
`
`B. 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.
`1. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file—
`a.
`A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`b.
`A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend 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.
`2. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and
`opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`3. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to patent
`owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`4. DUE DATE 4
`a.
`Each party must file any motion for an observation on the cross-
`examination testimony of a reply witness (see section A.8, above) by DUE
`DATE 4.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`b.
`§ 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE
`DATE 4.
`5. DUE DATE 5
`a.
`Each party must file any reply to a petitioner 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.
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by DUE
`DATE 6.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE DATE 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ............................................ Upon Request
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................ March 9, 2017
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................. May 31, 2017
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................. June 28, 2017
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ..............................................................................July 20, 2017
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ........................................................................... August 3, 2017
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ......................................................................... August 10, 2017
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ......................................................................... August 24, 2017
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`PETITIONER:
`IPR2016-01203
`David L. Fehrman
`Martin M. Noonen
`MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
`dfehrman@mofo.com
`mnoonen@mofo.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Wayne M. Helge
`Walter D. Davis
`DAVIDSON, BERQUIST, JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`whelge@dbjg.com
`wdavis@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`9