`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
`
`
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
