`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
` Entered: October 25, 2018
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HP INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JAMES GOODMAN,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2017-01994 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)
`Case IPR2017-02021 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)2
`_______________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 HP Inc. is the Petitioner in Case IPR2017-01994. Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. is the Petitioner in IPR2017-02021. ASUS Computer
`International, Inc. is the Petitioner in IPR2018-00047, which has been joined
`with IPR2017-02021.
`2 This Order addresses an issue relevant to both cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any
`subsequent papers
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01994 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)
`Case IPR2017-02021 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)
`
`
`
` On October 24, 2018, a conference call was held to address counsel
`for Patent Owner’s request that the oral hearings, scheduled for Friday
`November 16, 2018, take place in the morning so that the arguments are
`completed by noon due to counsel’s observance of the Sabbath. Judges
`McGraw, Boucher, and McNamara attended the call, as well as counsel for
`the parties, including Mr. David Fink, representing Patent Owner in both
`proceedings, Mr. Barry Shelton, representing Petitioner in IPR2017-01994,
`and Mr. Xin-Yi Zhou, representing Petitioner in IPR2017-02021.
`During the call, Mr. Zhou stated that, as noted in its Petitioner’s
`request for oral hearing, 30 minutes of total argument time per side would be
`sufficient. Mr. Fink and Mr. Shelton each agreed that 30 minutes per side in
`each of their proceedings would be sufficient. The Board noted that even if
`each proceeding were limited to one hour total argument time (30 minutes
`per side), that due to the time required for matters such as introductory
`remarks and podium changes, it is unlikely both proceedings would be
`concluded by noon. Mr. Fink responded that he could stay past noon, but
`would be uncomfortable staying past 1:30 pm.
`In view of the foregoing representations, the Board determined that
`the oral hearings for both proceedings may continue as scheduled for
`November 16, 2018 so long as the first hearing begin no later than 10:00 am
`EST and the second hearing begins promptly thereafter. To ensure timely
`completion of the oral hearings, the parties shall not cause any undue delay.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01994 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)
`Case IPR2017-02021 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)
`
`
`
`In view of the foregoing:
`It is ORDERED that the scheduled date for the oral hearing in
`IPR2017-01994 and IPR2017-02021 remains unchanged,
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall not unduly delay the
`timely completion of their hearing.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01994 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)
`Case IPR2017-02021 (Patent 6,243,315 B1)
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Barry K. Shelton (IPR2017-01994)
`SHELTON & COBURN LLP
`bshelton@sheltoncolburn.com
`
`Ryan K. Yagura (IPR2017-02021)
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`ryagura@omm.com vzhou@omm.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`David Fink
`FINK & JOHNSON
`texascowboy6@gmail.com
`
`Felix Readus
`federallitigationlaw@gmail.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
