`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: September 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases
`IPR2017-00136 (Patent 8,641,525 B2)
`IPR2017-00137 (Patent 9,089,770 B2)
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00136 (Patent 8,641,525 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00137 (Patent 9,089,770 B2)
`
`
`
`
`At Petitioner’s request, a call was held with the panel and counsel for
`
`each party on August 31, 2017. Petitioner requests guidance regarding cross
`
`examination of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Stevick.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Patent Owner filed a Declaration from Dr. Stevick in both
`
`proceedings.1
`
`On August 11, 2017, Petitioner filed a Notice of Deposition of
`
`Dr. Stevick for both proceedings.2 The Notice states that the deposition will
`
`begin on September 6, 2017, and will continue from day-to-day until
`
`completed.
`
`On August 27, 2017, Petitioner filed the Petitioner’s Reply in
`
`IPR2017-00136 (Paper 20), but did not file the Reply for IPR2017-00137.
`
`
`
`ISSUE
`
`
`
`With regard to IPR2017-00137, the parties agree that the Deposition
`
`of Dr. Stevick should be carried out as scheduled.
`
`Patent Owner contends that in these circumstances, Dr. Stevick is
`
`unavailable for cross-examination regarding IPR2017-00136 pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(b)(1).
`
`Petitioner contends that 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(b)(1) is not applicable to
`
`this situation, and that the cross-examination should proceed as scheduled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Exhibits 2002 and 2032 in each proceeding.
`2 Papers 18 and 19 of each proceeding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00136 (Patent 8,641,525 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00137 (Patent 9,089,770 B2)
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s reliance upon 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.53(b)(1) is misplaced because that rule deals with uncompelled direct
`
`testimony, not cross examination testimony. However, the Scheduling
`
`Order in this case states that the period for 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.” Paper 13 ¶ B.2. The filing
`
`date for Petitioner’s Reply in IPR2017-00136 was August 27, 2017, and
`
`consequently the period for cross-examination has ended. Petitioner elected
`
`to file the Reply early, and in doing so closed the period for cross-
`
`examination.
`
`
`
`We recognize that these proceedings are related, and consequently
`
`cross-examination of Dr. Stevick with regard to IPR2017-00137 may reveal
`
`information relevant to IPR2017-00136. Should this situation arise, we are
`
`willing to consider if the Deposition taken for IPR2017-00137 and an
`
`associated paper may be filed in IPR2017-00136.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the cross-examination of
`
`Dr. Stevick will proceed as scheduled for and IPR2017-00137, but
`
`Dr. Stevcik may not be cross-examined with regard to IPR2017-00136.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00136 (Patent 8,641,525 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00137 (Patent 9,089,770 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joshua Harrison
`josh@bhiplaw.com
`
`Reynaldo Barcelo
`rey@bhiplaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ehab Samuel
`Esamuel-ptab@manatt.com
`
`Danielle Mihalkanin
`dmihalkanin@manatt.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
