Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 17
`Entered: March 28, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; NIHON PLAST CO., LTD.;
`NEATON AUTO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, INC.;
`TAKATA CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGS INC.;
`TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD.;
`MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC; and MOBIS PARTS AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`CASE MANAGEMENT
`AND SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 17
`Entered: March 28, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; NIHON PLAST CO., LTD.;
`NEATON AUTO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, INC.;
`TAKATA CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGS INC.;
`TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD.;
`MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC; and MOBIS PARTS AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`CASE MANAGEMENT
`AND SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1. Initial Conference Call
`
`Unless at least one of the parties requests otherwise, we will not
`
`conduct an initial conference call as described in the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`parties are directed to contact the Board within one month of this Order if
`
`there is a need to discuss proposed changes to the schedule or any proposed
`
`motions. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,765–66 (guidance in preparing for the
`
`initial conference call).
`
`2. Conference Calls with the Board
`
`In any request for a conference call with the Board to resolve a
`
`dispute, the requesting party shall: (a) certify that it has conferred with the
`
`other party in an effort to resolve the dispute; (b) identify with specificity the
`
`issues for which agreement has not been reached; (c) identify the precise
`
`relief to be sought; and (d) propose specific dates and times at which both
`
`parties are available for the conference call. Prior to contacting the Board,
`
`however, we encourage the parties to resolve any disputes arising in the
`
`proceeding on their own and in accordance with the precepts set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`3. Confidential Information
`
`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. The parties are encouraged to
`
`adopt the Board’s default protective order if they conclude that a protective
`
`order is necessary. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,771 (App. B, Default Protective
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Order). If the parties choose to propose a protective order deviating from
`
`the default protective order, they must submit the proposed protective order
`
`jointly.
`
`The parties must file confidential information using the appropriate
`
`availability indicator in the Board’s electronic filing system (e.g., “Board
`
`and Parties Only”), regardless of whose confidential information it is. It is
`
`the responsibility of the party whose confidential information is at issue, not
`
`necessarily the proffering party, to file the motion to seal, unless the party
`
`whose confidential information is at issue is not a party to this proceeding.
`
`Any motion to seal must include a certification that the moving party has in
`
`good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an
`
`effort to resolve any dispute. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a).
`
`The Board has a strong interest in the public availability of the
`
`proceedings. Redactions should be limited strictly to isolated passages
`
`consisting entirely of confidential information. The thrust of the underlying
`
`argument or evidence must be clearly discernable from the redacted version.
`
`Information subject to a protective order will become public if
`
`identified in a final written decision in this proceeding. A motion to
`
`expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over the public interest
`
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 48,761.
`
`4. Motion to Amend
`
`Although the filing of a Motion to Amend is authorized under our
`
`Rules, Patent Owner must confer with the Board before filing any Motion to
`
`Amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). We strongly encourage the parties to
`
`arrange for such a conference call with the Board no less than ten (10)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`business days prior to the due date for filing the Motion to Amend. The
`
`parties also are directed 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.
`
`5. Depositions
`
`The parties are advised that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,772–73 (App. D),
`
`apply to this proceeding. The Board may impose an appropriate sanction for
`
`failure to adhere to the Testimony Guidelines. See 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.
`
`6. Cross-Examination
`
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`
`a. Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is
`
`due. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`
`b. 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. See 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 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768.
`
`The observation must be a concise statement of the relevance of precisely
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`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.
`
`II. 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.
`
`Regardless of whether the parties stipulate to a change of DUE
`
`DATE 4, for Board planning purposes, requests for oral argument must be
`
`filed no later than the date set forth in this order for DUE DATE 4.
`
`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).
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`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.7, above) by
`
`DUE DATE 4.
`
`b. Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`
`§ 42.64(c)) by DUE DATE 4.
`
`c. Each party must file any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4. As noted above, DUE DATE 4 is not
`
`extendible with respect to any request for oral argument.
`
`5. 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.
`
`6. DUE DATE 6
`
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`7. DUE DATE 7
`
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`
`DATE 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................ June 22, 2017
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 .................................................................. September 14, 2017
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ...................................................................... October 12, 2017
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................... November 2, 2017
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................... November 16, 2017
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 .................................................................. November 27, 2017
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ..................................................................... December 6, 2017
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`John M. Bird
`Margaret M. Welsh
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`jbird@sughrue.com
`mwelsh@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`Irfan A. Lateef
`Brian C. Claassen
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2ial@knobbe.com
`2bcc@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`Keith E. Broyles
`Wes Achey
`Siraj Abhyankar
`ALSTON & BIRD
`keith.broyles@alston.com
`wes.achey@alston.com
`shri.abhyankar@alston.com
`
`
`
`William H. Oldach
`VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
`wholdach@vorys.com
`
`
`
`Daniel N. Yannuzzi
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`dyannuzzi@sheppardmullin.com
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`Christopher Casieri
`MCNEELY, HALE & WAR LLP
`chris@miplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
