Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 33
`Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NEXEON LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ONED MATERIAL, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`EXTENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 33
`Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NEXEON LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ONED MATERIAL, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`EXTENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`
`
`On April 27, 2018, we modified our institution decision to include
`review of “all challenged claims and all of the grounds presented in the
`Petition.” Paper 26, 2. As a result of this modification, nine grounds and
`seven claims were added to this inter partes review. See Paper 33 (“J. Br.”),
`1–3 (identifying the grounds asserted in the Petition, the grounds originally
`instituted, and the newly-instituted grounds).
`On May 21, 2018, with Board authorization (Paper 29), the parties
`filed a Joint Brief in Support of Good Cause to Extend the Schedule along
`with a joint proposed schedule of supplemental briefing to address the
`newly-instituted grounds. J. Br., Ex. A. Having found that good cause
`exists to do so, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge extended the one-year
`period for issuing a Final Written Decision in this proceeding for up to six
`months from the current August 25, 2018 deadline. Papers 31, 32.
`The Appendix to this Extended Scheduling Order sets due dates for
`the parties to take action with respect to the newly-instituted grounds in this
`proceeding. See Paper 26, 2; Paper 14, 11; Paper 12, 6–7. In setting these
`due dates, we considered the parties’ jointly proposed schedule, as well as
`the parties’ requests regarding the page length of the requested supplemental
`briefing. J. Br. 5–6, Ex. A. The due dates set forth in this Order cannot be
`changed without prior authorization from the Board.
`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 attorney’s fees
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`
`incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impeded, delays, or
`frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
`A. DUE DATES
`
`1. DUE DATE 8
`The patent owner may file—
`a.
`A supplemental response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120),
`limited to the merits of the previously non-instituted grounds; and
`b.
`A motion to amend, limited to the newly-instituted claims.
`The patent owner must file any such supplemental response (limited
`to 35 pages) or motion to amend by DUE DATE 8. 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.
`
`2. DUE DATE 9
`The petitioner must file any supplemental reply to the patent owner’s
`supplemental response, limited to 15 pages, and any opposition to the
`motion to amend the newly-instituted claims, by DUE DATE 9.
`
`3. DUE DATE 10
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to
`patent owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 10.
`
`4. DUE DATE 11
`a.
`Each party must file any observations on the cross-examination
`testimony of a supplemental reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE
`DATE 11.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`
`
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence in
`b.
`connection with the previously non-instituted grounds (37 C.F.R § 42.64(c))
`and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 11.
`
`5. DUE DATE 12
`a.
`Each party must file any response to an observation on cross-
`examination testimony of a supplemental reply witness by DUE DATE 12.
`b.
`Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence in connection with the previously non-instituted grounds by DUE
`DATE 12.
`
`6. DUE DATE 13
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence in
`connection with the previously non-instituted grounds by DUE DATE 13.
`
`7. DUE DATE 14
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 14.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`
`C. OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`Observations on cross-examination provide 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. at 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`DUE DATE 8 .............................................................................. July 27, 2018
`Patent owner’s supplemental response to the petition, limited to the
`merits of the newly-instituted grounds
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend, limited to the newly-instituted
`claims
`
`DUE DATE 9 ................................................................... September 24, 2018
`Petitioner’s supplemental reply to patent owner’s supplemental
`response to petition
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend the newly-instituted claims
`
`DUE DATE 10 ..................................................................... October 22, 2018
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend the
`newly-instituted claims
`
`DUE DATE 11 ..................................................................... October 29, 2018
`Observations regarding cross-examination of supplemental reply
`witness
`Motion to exclude evidence in connection with the previously non-
`instituted grounds
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 12 .................................................................... November 5, 2018
`Response to observations regarding cross-examination of
`supplemental reply witness
`Opposition to motion to exclude evidence in connection with the
`previously non-instituted grounds
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`
`DUE DATE 13 ................................................................ November 13, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude evidence in connection with
`the previously non-instituted grounds
`
`DUE DATE 14 ................................................................ November 19, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00543
`Patent 7,939,218 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`S. Richard Carden
`James V. Suggs
`
`McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`carden@mbhb.com
`suggs@mbhb.com
`dyar@mbhb.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`Ronald Lopez
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`rflopez@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
