Paper 12
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: January 9, 2017
`
`571–272–7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`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
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: January 9, 2017
`
`571–272–7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`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. 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
`The parties are directed to contact the Board within a month of this
`decision if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling
`Order or proposed motions. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) (guidance in preparing for the
`initial conference call). To request a conference call, the requesting party
`should submit a list of dates and times when both parties are available for a
`call.
`
`2. ADR STATEMENT
`The parties are encouraged to discuss promptly alternative means for
`resolving their disputes regarding the subject matter of this proceeding. To
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`advance the opportunities for early disposition, petitioner is encouraged to
`notify the Board, before the initial conference call period, that the parties
`have conferred regarding alternative dispute resolution and whether the
`parties have reached any agreements.
`
`3. 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).
`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.
`
`4. 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.
`
`5. 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.
`
`6. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`
`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.
`
`7. 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.
`
`8. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`9. 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. 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 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. 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.
`
`D. MOTION TO AMEND
`
`Notwithstanding the page limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, we
`hereby expand those limits for the following papers: a motion to amend, if
`filed in this proceeding, as well as petitioner’s opposition to the motion to
`amend, each are limited to twenty-five (25) pages; patent owner’s reply to
`the opposition to the motion to amend is limited to twelve (12) pages; and
`the claim listing may be contained in an appendix to the motion to amend,
`and does not count toward the page limit of the motion. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.5(b).
`The patent owner is reminded that it must confer with the Board
`before filing a motion to amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). The patent owner
`should contact the Board to request the conference in sufficient time to
`ensure that the conference is conducted at least one week before DUE
`DATE 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`E.
`Notwithstanding the page limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c),
`
`petitioner’s reply brief to patent owner response is limited to twenty-five
`(25) pages. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ...................................... UPON REQUEST
`
`DUE DATE 1 .......................................................................... March 30, 2017
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................... June 5, 2017
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 .............................................................................. July 12, 2017
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .............................................................................. July 26, 2017
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ......................................................................... August 10, 2017
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ......................................................................... August 24, 2017
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ..................................................................... September 7, 2017
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Michael D. Specht
`Steven M. Pappas
`Michael B. Ray
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`spappas-PTAB@skgf.com
`mray-PTAB@skgf.com
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Terry A. Saad
`Nicholas C. Kliewer
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com
`tsaad@bcpclaw.com
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`8
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
