`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 68
`Date: May 2, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00219 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)
`Case IPR2017-00210 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style of heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)
`IPR2017-00219 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)
`
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S.
`
`Apr. 24, 2018). In our Decisions on Institution, we determined that
`
`Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at
`
`least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No 7,116,710 is
`
`unpatentable. IPR2017-00210, Paper 18; IPR2017-00219, Paper 17. We
`
`modify our Decisions on Institution to institute on all of the challenged
`
`claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petitions from IPR2017-00210
`
`(Paper 5, 33–75) and IPR2017-00219 (Paper 5, 33–72). See Guidance on
`
`the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018), available at
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`
`board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial.
`
`The parties shall confer to discuss the impact, if any, of this Order on
`
`the current schedule. If, after conferring, the parties wish to change the
`
`schedule or submit further briefing, the parties must, within one week of the
`
`date of this Order, request a conference call with the panel to seek
`
`authorization for such changes or briefing.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that our Decisions on Institution are modified to include
`
`review of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petitions
`
`from IPR2017-00210 (Paper 5) and IPR2017-00219 (Paper 5); and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`
`to determine whether they desire any changes to the schedule or any further
`
`briefing, and, if so, shall request a conference call with the panel to seek
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)
`IPR2017-00219 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)
`
`authorization for such changes or briefing within one week of the date of this
`
`Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)
`IPR2017-00219 (Patent 7,116,710 B1)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Brian M. Seeve
`Dominic E. Massa
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`brian.seeve@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Matthew A. Argenti
`Richard Torczon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`margenti@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Todd M. Briggs
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`