Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 12, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TOMTOM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECH, LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`____________
`
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 12, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TOMTOM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECH, LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`____________
`
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`
`The Appendix to this Order sets due dates for the parties to take action
`after institution of these proceedings. The parties may stipulate to different
`dates for DUE DATES 1 through 5 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE
`DATE 6). A notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed
`due dates, must be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate to an
`extension of DUE DATES 6 and 7. In addition, even if the parties stipulate
`to an extension of DUE DATE 4, any request for oral hearing must still be
`filed on or before the date set forth in this Order, to provide sufficient time
`for the Board to accommodate the hearing.
`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 D, 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.
`
`A. INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`The parties are directed to contact the Board within a month of this
`Order if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Order or
`proposed motions. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) (guidance in preparing for the initial
`conference call).
`
`B. PROTECTIVE ORDER
`1. Confidential Information
`The parties must file confidential information using the appropriate
`availability indicator in PTAB E2E, regardless of whose confidential
`information it is. It is the responsibility of the party whose confidential
`information is at issue, not necessarily the proffering party, to file the motion
`to seal.
`A protective order does not exist in a case until one is filed in the case
`and is approved by the Board. If a motion to seal is filed by either party, the
`proposed protective order should be presented as an exhibit to the motion.
`The motion to seal must include a certification that the moving party has in
`good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an
`effort to resolve any dispute. See 37 C.F.R. 42.54(a).
`The parties are urged to operate under the Board’s default protective
`order, should that become necessary. See Default Protective Order, Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,769–71, App. B.
`If the parties choose to propose a protective order deviating from the
`default protective order, they should submit the proposed protective order
`jointly. A marked-up comparison of the proposed and default protective
`orders should be presented as an additional exhibit to the motion to seal, so
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`that differences can be understood readily. The parties should contact the
`Board if they cannot agree on the terms of the proposed protective order.
`2. Redactions
`Redactions should be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting
`entirely of confidential information. The thrust of the underlying argument
`or evidence must be clearly discernable from the redacted version.
`3. Confidential Information in Final Written Decisions
`Information subject to a protective order will become public if
`identified in a final written decision in this proceeding. A motion to
`expunge the information will not prevail necessarily over the public interest
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history. See Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761.
`
`C. DUE DATES
`
`1. 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.
`
`2. 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`
`3. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to
`patent owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`4. DUE DATE 4
`a.
`Each party must file any observations on the cross-examination
`testimony of a reply witness (see section E, below) by DUE DATE 4.
`b.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(c)) by DUE DATE 4.
`c. Each party must file any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4. As noted above, DUE DATE 4 is not
`extendible with respect to any request for oral argument.
`
`5. 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.
`
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7.
`
`D. CROSS-EXAMINATION
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`
`Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is
`1.
`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.
`
`E. 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.
`
`F. MOTION TO AMEND
`
`Although the filing of a Motion to Amend is authorized under our
`Rules, the patent owner must confer with the Board before filing any Motion
`to Amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). A conference call to satisfy the
`requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a) must be scheduled no less than ten
`(10) business days prior to DUE DATE 1.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`G. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD
`Except as otherwise provided in the Rules, Board authorization is
`required before filing a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). A party seeking to file
`a non-preauthorized motion should request a conference to obtain
`authorization to file the motion. Parties may request a conference with us by
`contacting the Board staff by e-mail at Trials@uspto.gov or by telephone at
`571-272-7822.
`Regarding discovery disputes, the parties are encouraged to resolve
`such issues on their own and in accordance with the precepts set forth in 37
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b). To the extent that a dispute arises between the parties
`relating to discovery, the parties should meet and confer to resolve such a
`dispute before contacting the Board. If attempts to resolve the dispute fail, a
`party may request a conference call with the Board and the other party to
`discuss the issue and, if necessary, seek authorization to file a motion in that
`regard. An email requesting a conference call shall: (a) copy the other party,
`(b) indicate generally the subject matter of the conference call and relief
`requested, (c) state whether the opposing party opposes the request, and (d)
`include multiple times when all parties are available for a conference. The
`email shall not contain substantive argument.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ............................................... OPTIONAL
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................ April 12, 2018
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................ June 12, 2018
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 .................................................................. September 12, 2018
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ....................................................................... October 12, 2018
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................... November 2, 2018
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 .................................................................. November 16, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ................................................................... December 11, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`PETITIONER:
`Dipu A. Doshi
`Michael S. Marcus
`Megan R. Wood
`BLANK ROME LLP
`ddoshi@blankrome.com
`mwood@blankrome.com
`mmarcus@blankrome.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Walter D. Davis, Jr.
`Wayne M. Helge
`Aldo Noto
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`wdavis@dbjg.com
`whelge@dbjg.com
`anoto@dbjg.com
`
`
`9
`
`
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
