`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 21
`
`Entered: October 24, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)1
`______________
`
`
`Before DEBRA STEPHENS, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 The Order concerns a matter applicable to all proceedings. We exercise
`our discretion to file a single Order in the cases. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`
`
`On October 13, 2017, the Board requested a conference call with the parties
`
`to discuss what impact, if any, the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua
`
`Prods., Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017) would have with
`
`regards to (1) Patent Owner’s pending Motions to Amend in IPR2016-01737 and
`
`IPR2016-01738 and (2) the current scheduling order in place in each proceeding.
`
`On the call were counsel for both parties as well as Judges Braden, Stephens, and
`
`Chung.
`
`During the call, the parties indicated their understanding that the Federal
`
`Circuit’s decision removed the burden of persuasion from Patent Owner.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requested to file a new brief challenging the patentability
`
`of Patent Owner’s proposed amended claims and suggested that the panel expunge
`
`all prior briefing related to the proposed amended claims. Patent Owner agreed to
`
`Petitioner submitting a supplemental brief with the understanding that Patent
`
`Owner would have the opportunity to file an opposition of equal length, but
`
`opposed expunging prior briefs. The panel agreed with the parties requests to file
`
`briefs and thus, authorized additional briefing. The panel requested that the parties
`
`submit an agreed proposed briefing schedule and a new date for an oral argument
`
`should one be requested.
`
`The parties could not agree on a briefing schedule, specifically the due date
`
`for Petitioner’s opening supplemental brief, and could not agree on a new date for
`
`oral arguments. Therefore, the panel convened an additional conference call on
`
`October 19, 2017, to discuss the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Based on
`
`arguments from the parties, the panel indicated that Petitioner’s Opening
`
`Supplemental Brief would be due no later than Nov. 10, 2017 and oral arguments
`
`would be held on Jan. 8, 2018. The parties then conferred and submitted an agreed
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`schedule on Oct. 23, 2017. Based on timing requirements for the panel, the
`
`following schedule is entered for the above captioned cases:
`
`
`
`Event
`
`Due Date
`
`Petitioner’s Opening Supplemental
`Brief (limited to 12 pages)
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`Petitioner’s Opening Supplemental
`Brief (limited to 12 pages)
`Request for oral argument
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Opposition (limited to 5 pages)
`DUE DATE 4: Motion for observation
`regarding cross-examination of reply
`witness, Motion to exclude evidence
`DUE DATE 5: Response to observation
`and Opposition to motion to exclude
`DUE DATE 6: Reply to opposition to
`motion to exclude
`DUE DATE 7: Oral argument (if
`requested)
`
`
`Nov. 10, 2017
`
`Dec 4, 2017
`
`Dec. 8, 2017
`Dec. 18, 2017
`
`Dec. 22, 2017 (unless Apple submits a
`further declaration in support of its
`Reply)
`Dec. 29, 2017
`
`Jan. 4, 2018
`
`Jan. 8, 2018
`
`Except as indicated below, filing requirements and page limits for all
`
`submissions are dictated by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6 and 42.24. The parties may
`
`stipulate to different dates for the above-listed events; however, the parties may not
`
`modify the due date for Petitioner’s Opening Supplemental Brief, the date for
`
`requesting oral argument, DUE DATE 6, or the date of the oral argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`
`Accordingly, in consideration of the preceding, it is:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file an Opening Supplemental
`
`Brief addressing Patent Owner’s proposed amended clams, such brief shall be filed
`
`no later than 6pm ET on November10, 2017, and shall be limited to twelve (12)
`
`pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file an
`
`Opposition to Petitioner’s Opening Supplemental Brief List, such brief shall be
`
`filed no later than 6pm ET on December 4, 2017, and shall be limited to twelve
`
`(12) pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Opposition, such brief shall be filed no later than 6pm ET on December
`
`18, 2017, and shall be limited to five (5) pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if requested by at least on party, oral argument
`
`in IPR2016-01737, IPR2016-01738, and IPR2016-01739 shall be held on
`
`January 8, 2018; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may stipulate to different dates for
`
`the above-listed events; however, the parties may not modify the due date for
`
`Petitioner’s Opening Supplemental Brief, the date for requesting oral argument,
`
`DUE DATE 6, or the date of the oral argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`Axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`Jeremy Monaldo
`jjm@fr.com
`
`Andrew Patrick
`patrick@fr.com
`
`Katherine Lutton
`lutton@fr.com
`
`James Huguenin-Love
`Huguenin-love@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph Edell
`Joe.edell.ipr@fischllp.com
`
`Richard Zhang
`Richard.zhang.ipr@fischllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`