`Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 28
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`Entered: April 5, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Remand Procedure and Briefing Schedule
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`On April 5, 2019, a conference call was held to discuss the procedure
`
`that will govern the remand phase of this proceeding. See United Tech.
`Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 2018-01600, 2019 WL 332754 (Fed. Cir.
`Jan. 25, 2019) (mandate issued Mar. 4, 2019). Neither party retained a court
`reporter for the call. This Order, therefore, represents the official record of
`the call.
`The call was attended by Judges Obermann, Kaiser, and Ankenbrand
`for the Board, Mr. Brian Ferguson for Petitioner, and Messrs. David L. Holt
`and W. Karl Renner for Patent Owner. As an initial matter, counsel for both
`parties confirmed that, prior to the call, the parties had reached agreement as
`to the terms of a remand procedure and briefing schedule. Counsel for both
`parties requested that the Board adopt their agreed-upon remand procedure
`and briefing schedule. The Board indicated a willingness to do so, in the
`event that the parties’ proposal was fair and reasonable in view of the
`particular facts and circumstances of the case, and would facilitate an
`expeditious entry of a remand decision.
`The call lasted for about 20 minutes, including a short break to
`accommodate a panel conference outside the hearing of counsel. During the
`course of the call, counsel and the Board explored the breadth and content of
`the parties’ agreed-upon remand procedure and briefing schedule. The
`Board determined that the parties’ proposal is reasonable in view of the
`issues remaining in the case and, further, should facilitate the paramount
`goal of entering a fair and expeditious remand decision. Counsel for both
`parties expressly confirmed their agreement with every term of the remand
`procedure and briefing schedule, as set forth below.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, the Board granted the parties’ joint request for entry of
`the agreed-upon remand procedure and briefing schedule, the terms of which
`are set forth below.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a Remand Brief by close of
`
`business on April 15, 2019;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall file a responsive
`Remand Brief by close of business on April 22, 2019;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that each Remand Brief shall be limited to
`seven (7) pages of text, excluding the caption, signature block, and table of
`contents, if any;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no new evidence may be filed with any
`Remand Brief;
`FURTHER ORDERED that each Remand Brief may contain new
`argument; however, the new argument must be confined to explaining the
`relevance of record evidence previously cited in a substantive brief;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, although the parties are in agreement
`that an oral hearing is not necessary to afford adequate process on remand,
`the Board may order an oral hearing after briefing is complete, in the event
`the Board determines that an oral hearing may be helpful to the Board; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other remand procedure or briefing is
`authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Anish Desai
`Megan Wantland
`Brian Ferguson
`WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`megan.wantland@weil.com
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Timothy Riffe
`Lauren Degnan
`David L. Holt
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`Axf-ptab@fr.com
`riffe@fr.com
`degnan@fr..com
`holt2@fr.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`