Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 8
` Filed: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00221, Patent 7,535,890 B2
`Case IPR2017-00222, Patent 8,243,723 B2
`Case IPR2017-00225, Patent 8,995,433 B21
`
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues pertaining to each of the above-captioned
`cases. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue a single order to be
`filed in each case. The parties are not authorized to use this combined
`caption for any subsequent papers without authorization from the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 8
` Filed: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00221, Patent 7,535,890 B2
`Case IPR2017-00222, Patent 8,243,723 B2
`Case IPR2017-00225, Patent 8,995,433 B21
`
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues pertaining to each of the above-captioned
`cases. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue a single order to be
`filed in each case. The parties are not authorized to use this combined
`caption for any subsequent papers without authorization from the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`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). Any
`stipulation to a different DUE DATE 4, however, does not modify the
`deadline set in this Order for requesting an oral argument. A notice of the
`stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be filed
`promptly. 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
`Within 30 days of this Scheduling Order, either party may request an
`initial conference call if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to the
`due dates set in this Order or proposed motions. To request a conference
`call, the requesting party should submit a list of dates and times when the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`parties are available for a call. If an initial conference call is requested, the
`parties should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to this
`Scheduling Order and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the
`trial. The parties are directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) for guidance in preparing
`for an initial conference 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
`advance the opportunities for early disposition, petitioner is encouraged to
`notify the Board, by the due date identified in the Appendix to this Order,
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`5. DUE DATE 32
`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.
`b.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R.
`§ 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.
`The parties are advised that oral argument, if requested, will be held in
`the Texas Regional Office in Dallas, TX.3
`
`
`2 The parties are advised that if no motion to amend is filed in these
`proceedings, Due Date 3 is moot, and the panel may advance Due Dates 4–7
`sua sponte.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`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-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.
`
`
`3 Information concerning the Texas Regional Office can be found in the
`USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/dallas-
`texas.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ..................................... UPON REQUEST
`
`ADR STATEMENT DUE ........................................................... July 26, 2017
`
`DUE DATE 1 ........................................................................ August 21, 2017
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 .................................................................. November 14, 2017
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ................................................................... December 14, 2017
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ......................................................................... January 4, 2018
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument (see Section A above)
`
`DUE DATE 5 ....................................................................... January 18, 2018
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ....................................................................... January 25, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ....................................................................... February 8, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Michael D. Specht
`Steven Passas
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C
`Jasone-ptab@skgf.com
`mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`spappas-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Ryan Loveless
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
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
