`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00806
`Patent No. 7,161,506
`____________________
`
`
`
`PARTIES’ JOINT NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
`AND REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE FROM THE BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00806
`JOINT NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
`The Board requested, by e-mail of August 16, 2017, that Dell Inc., EMC
`
`Corp., Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co., HP Enterprise Services, LLC, Teradata
`
`Operations Inc., and Realtime Data LLC (collectively, the Parties) meet and confer
`
`to discuss the possibility of coordinating schedules and discovery and
`
`consolidating trial in four instituted inter partes reviews:
`
`• IPR2017-00176 (the Dell ’506 IPR)
`
`• IPR2017-00179 (the Dell ’728 IPR)
`
`• IPR2017-00806 (the Teradata ’506 IPR)
`
`• IPR2017-00808 (the Teradata ’728 IPR)
`
`The Parties conferred on August 17, 2017, and discussed the issues with the
`
`Board during a call held on August 18, 2017. The Board instructed the Parties to
`
`file a Joint Notice reflecting the agreement reached during those calls.
`
`Accordingly, the Parties hereby file this Joint Notice reflecting the extent of
`
`their agreement and seeking guidance from the Board on two areas of
`
`disagreement. The Parties agree that:
`
`• they will proceed according to the schedule entered in the two earlier-
`
`filed inter partes reviews, except that in the Dell ’728 and Dell ’506
`
`Patent IPRs Due Date 1 will be extended three weeks to September
`
`20, 2017, with no other modifications to the schedule currently
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00806
`JOINT NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
`contemplated (attached Exhibit A reflects the Parties proposed
`
`schedule for all four proceedings);
`
`• beginning with the Patent Owner Response, the Parties will file joint
`
`papers in the pairs of proceedings for each respective challenged
`
`patent—i.e., Patent Owner will file one common Patent Owner
`
`Response related to the ’506 Patent in both the Dell ’506 and Teradata
`
`’506 IPRs (and Petitioners will file one common Reply), and Patent
`
`Owner will file one common Patent Owner Response related to the
`
`’728 Patent in both the Dell ’728 and Teradata ’728 IPRs (and
`
`Petitioners will file one common Reply);
`
`• the deposition of Dr. Creusere taken by Patent Owner on August 4,
`
`2017, in the Dell ’506 and ’728 IPRs will be treated as having also
`
`been taken in the Teradata ’506 and ’728 IPRs, and that Patent Owner
`
`will not seek an additional deposition of Dr. Creusere in the later-filed
`
`proceedings as to the opinions expressed in his initial declaration in
`
`the Teradata ’506 and Teradata ’728 Patent IPRs;
`
`• the Parties do not currently seek extra words of briefing, additional
`
`time at oral argument, or additional time for questioning at any future
`
`deposition as a result of this consolidation, but reserve the right to do
`
`so if such need becomes apparent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00806
`JOINT NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
`The Parties seek guidance from the Board on the following two areas of
`
`disagreement related to discovery and oral hearings:
`
`Discovery
`
`Background: Given the overlap of issues, the Dell Petitioners and Patent
`
`Owner previously agreed to a single consolidated expert deposition across the Dell
`
`’728 and ’506 Patent IPR proceedings. Accordingly, Patent Owner took a single,
`
`one-day deposition of Dr. Creusere as to both the Dell ’728 and ’506 Patent IPR
`
`proceedings (which, pursuant to the agreement in this notice, will be treated as
`
`having been taken in the Teradata ’728 and ’506 Patent IPR proceedings). The Dell
`
`Petitioners, in turn, intend to take a single deposition of any expert that Patent
`
`Owner relies on in the Patent Owner Response.
`
`Patent Owner and Teradata had not discussed such an arrangement at the
`
`time the Board asked the parties to confer about coordinating discovery. The
`
`Parties now disagree whether coordination of discovery between the Proceedings
`
`should include a similar single-deposition limitation as to Teradata.
`
`Teradata’s Proposal: Teradata will endeavor to schedule and administrate
`
`the deposition of any expert Patent Owner relies on such that only a single
`
`deposition is necessary for the Dell ’506 IPR, the Dell ’728 IPR, the Teradata ’506
`
`IPR, and the Teradata ’728 IPR. However, it is premature to require Teradata to
`
`be limited to a single deposition at this date. For example, Patent Owner has not
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00806
`JOINT NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
`yet served its Patent Owner Response (which will be due on September 20). Thus,
`
`Teradata proposes that it should maintain the right to one deposition of Patent
`
`Owner’s expert for each coordinated pair of proceedings (i.e. one deposition for
`
`opinions related to the ’728 Patent and one separate deposition for opinions related
`
`to the ’506 Patent), to the extent necessary.
`
`Dell and EMC’s Proposal: When Patent Owner files its Responses for the
`
`’728 and ’506 Patent proceedings, the Petitioners should take a single deposition of
`
`each expert for all proceedings. Similarly, if Petitioners rely on new expert
`
`opinions in their Petitioners’ Replies then Patent Owner should take a single
`
`deposition of each expert across all proceedings.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposal: To the extent Patent Owner relies on expert
`
`opinion to support arguments made in the Patent Owner Response, Petitioners
`
`should coordinate to take a single deposition of each such expert, consistent with
`
`Patent Owner’s single deposition of Dr. Creusere. Similarly, should Dell or
`
`Teradata rely on new expert opinion in their Petitioner Replies, Patent Owner
`
`should take a single deposition of each expert across the four proceedings.
`
`Oral Hearing
`
`Teradata’s Proposal: Teradata expects that the oral arguments for the four
`
`proceedings will be conducted on the same day before the same panel. Further,
`
`Teradata agrees that the Teradata ‘506 IPR and the Teradata ‘728 IPR may be
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00806
`JOINT NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
`considered together in a single oral hearing. Teradata will endeavor to work with
`
`the other Parties such that only a single oral hearing is necessary for the four
`
`proceedings. However, Teradata submits it is premature to require Teradata to be
`
`limited to a single, consolidated oral hearing and require that Petitioners share a
`
`single opening and rebuttal presentation at this date. For example, Patent Owner
`
`has not yet served its Patent Owner Response (which will be due on September
`
`20). Thus, Teradata proposes that it should maintain the right to an oral hearing for
`
`the Teradata ‘506 IPR and the Teradata ‘728 IPR, separate from the oral hearing
`
`for the Dell IPRs. If such separate hearings are necessary, Teradata agrees to work
`
`with the other Parties to eliminate any duplicative arguments.
`
`Dell and EMC’s Proposal: Dell and EMC leave to the Board to determine
`
`the appropriate number of oral hearings. Dell and EMC’s concern is that they have
`
`at least 45 minutes of oral argument time combined between the ’728 and ’506
`
`Patent proceedings.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposal: Given the overlap of issues, a single oral hearing
`
`should be held across all four proceedings on February 26, 2018. At that hearing,
`
`the Petitioners should make a single opening and rebuttal presentation, but may
`
`divide the time between the challenged patents and various Petitioner Parties as
`
`they see fit; similarly, Patent Owner will give a single response, but may divide its
`
`time between the challenged patents and Petitioner arguments as it sees fit. To the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00806
`JOINT NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
`extent the Board wishes to allocate additional oral hearing time, Patent Owner does
`
`not object provided that Patent Owner receive corresponding additional time.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William P. Rothwell
`
`William P. Rothwell, Reg. No. 72,522
`NOROOZI PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`/s/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822)
`1001 Page Mill Road, Bld. 1, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1007
`650.739.7511
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Teradata Operations, Inc.
`
`
`/s/Andrew R. Sommer/
`Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932)
`WINSTON &STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Dell Inc., EMC
`Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co., and HP
`Enterprise Services LLC
`
`
`6
`
`Date: August 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A – Proposed Schedule
`
`DUE DATE 1 ....................................................................September 20, 2017
`Patent Owner’s response to the Petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`
`DUE DATE 2 ................................................................... November 30, 2017
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to the Petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ..........................................................................January 2, 2018
`Patent Owner’s reply to Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`
`DUE DATE 4 ........................................................................January 22, 2018
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`
`DUE DATE 5 ........................................................................February 5, 2018
`Response to observation Opposition
`to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ......................................................................February 12, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`DUE DATE 7 ......................................................................February 26, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PARTIES’ JOINT
`
`NOTICE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION AND REQUEST FOR
`
`GUIDANCE FROM THE BOARD was served electronically via e-mail on
`
`August 29, 2017, in its entirety on the following counsel of record for Petitioners:
`
`IPR2017-00176 and -179
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Garth A. Winn
`Vivek V. Krishnan
`
`
`IPR2017-00806 and -808
`Eliot D. Williams
`Jamie R. Lynn
`Andrew Wilson
`Michelle Eber
`
`
`IPR2017-00176@winston.com
`IPR2017-00179@winston.com
`garth.winn@klarquist.com
`
`
`
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com
`andrew.wilson@bakerbotts.com
`michelle.eber@bakerbotts.com
`DLTeradata@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William P. Rothwell
`
`William P. Rothwell, Reg. No. 72,522
`NOROOZI PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`Date: August 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
