`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 36
`Entered: April 1, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00626
`Patent 6,363,345 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding—Remand Briefing Schedule
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Patent 6,363,345 B1
`
`
`This case is before us on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
`the Federal Circuit. Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020). On March 31, 2020, the panel held a conference call with
`counsel for Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Andrea Electronics Corp. (“Patent
`Owner”) to discuss the procedure and schedule on remand. A court reporter
`transcribed the call and a copy of the transcript will be included in the record
`when available.
`As indicated in an email correspondence to the Board, and confirmed
`during the call, the parties agree that the procedure on remand should
`include no new evidence and no oral argument. Although the parties did not
`agree on whether briefing was necessary and the timing for any such
`briefing, if authorized, they agreed that any briefing allowed should be
`limited to addressing the arguments previously raised in the Petition, Patent
`Owner Response, Petitioner’s Reply, and Observations on Cross-
`Examination that pertain to the challenge which is subject to the remand
`from the Federal Circuit (i.e., whether the combination of Hirsch and Martin
`render claims 6–9 obvious).
`Patent Owner requested a single round of concurrent briefing by the
`parties, limited to ten pages with a timeframe of two weeks. Petitioner
`submitted that no briefing is required, but requested two rounds of briefing,
`if briefing is authorized. Specifically, Petitioner proposed a first round of
`concurrent briefing, limited to ten pages with a timeline of three weeks,
`followed by a second round of concurrent briefing responsive to the first
`round, limited to five pages with a timeframe of three weeks.
`We agree with Patent Owner that the requested briefing would be
`beneficial to this proceeding. During the call we authorized the briefing and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Patent 6,363,345 B1
`
`schedule proposed by Petitioner, with a starting date of April 1, 2020. Based
`on the discussion with the parties, and the issues presented on remand, we
`hereby set the following schedule (see DUE DATE APPENDIX) and
`instructions. The parties may not stipulate to different dates without Board
`authorization.
`
`ORDER
`1. DUE DATE 1: Petitioner and Patent Owner are each authorized to
`file an Opening Brief of no more than ten pages, limited to addressing
`the arguments previously raised in the Petition, Patent Owner
`Response, Petitioner’s Reply, and Observations on Cross-Examination
`that pertain to the challenge which is subject to the remand from the
`Federal Circuit (i.e., whether the combination of Hirsch and Martin
`render claims 6–9 obvious).
`2. DUE DATE 2: Petitioner and Patent Owner are each authorized to
`file a Response Brief of no more than five pages, limited to addressing
`the Opening Brief from the opposing party.
`3. The Briefs shall not include any new evidence.
`4. No oral argument will be held.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1
`Opening Brief from Petitioner and Patent Owner
`DUE DATE 2
`Response Brief from Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`April 22, 2020
`
`May 6, 2020
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00626
`Patent 6,363,345 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`Steven S. Baik
`sbaik@sidley.com
`
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`William D. Belanger
`belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`
`Andrew Schultz
`schultza@pepperlaw.com
`
`Griffin Mesmer
`mesmerg@pepperlaw.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
