throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 5, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`
`A. DUE DATES
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. 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, nor does stipulating to a different DUE DATE 4 modify the
`deadline, set in this Order, for requesting an oral argument.
`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 B, 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.
`
`1. INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`The parties are directed to confer and to contact the Board within two
`(2) weeks of the earliest mailing date of this Decision on Institution if there
`is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling Order or proposed
`motions. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) (setting forth guidance in preparing for the initial
`conference call). Patent Owner is reminded that it must confer with the
`Board before filing a Motion to Amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Patent
`Owner should contact the Board to request such a conference, if necessary,
`at least two (2) weeks before DUE DATE 1.
`
`2. 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.
`
`3. 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. DUE DATE 31
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to
`patent owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`
`1 Please be advised that, if no Motion to Amend is filed in this proceeding,
`Due Date 3 is moot, and the panel may advance Due Dates 4–7 sua sponte.
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`
`5. DUE DATE 4
`a.
`Each party must file any observations on the cross-examination
`testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE DATE 4.
`b.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`
`6. DUE DATE 5
`a.
`Each party must file any response to any observations 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.
`
`7. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`
`8. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7.
`Demonstrative exhibits may be used at oral argument. Please note
`that demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, but merely a visual aid at the
`oral arguments. Demonstrative exhibits may not introduce new evidence or
`raise new arguments, but instead should cite to evidence in the record. The
`parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The
`Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65) and CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`Patent Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013)
`(Paper 118), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`exhibits.
`
`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 one week before the filing
`date for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to
`be used. Id.
`
`C. OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`Submitting observations on cross-examination provides 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. 48,756, 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.
`
`D. PROTECTIVE ORDER
`No protective order has been entered in this proceeding. The parties
`are reminded of the requirement for a protective order when filing a motion
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`to seal. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. If the parties have agreed to a proposed
`protective order, including the Default Standing Protective Order, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug 14, 2012), they should file a signed copy of the
`proposed protective order with the motion to seal. If the parties choose to
`propose a protective order other than, or departing from, the Default
`Standing Protective Order, they must submit a joint, proposed protective
`order, accompanied by a red-lined version based on the Default Standing
`Protective Order.
`E.
`DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`The panel encourages parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery
`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 shall 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 in order to seek
`authorization to move for relief.
`In any request for a conference call with the Board to resolve a
`discovery dispute, the requesting party shall: (a) certify that it has conferred
`with the other party in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute; (b) identify
`with specificity the issues for which agreement has not been reached;
`(c) identify the precise relief to be sought; and (d) propose specific dates and
`times at which both parties are available for the conference call.
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ............................................. Upon Request
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................. June 26, 2018
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ................................................................... September 17, 2018
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ....................................................................... October 16, 2018
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ..................................................................... November 6, 2018
`Observations regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................... November 20, 2018
`Response to observations
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ................................................................... November 27, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 .................................................................... December 14, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David W. O’Brien
`Raghav Bajaj
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Roshan Mansinghani
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Terry L. Watt
`CROWE & DUNLEVY
`terry.watt@crowedunlevy.com
`
`Matthew J. Antonelli
`Michael E. Ellis
`Larry D. Thompson, Jr.
`ANTONELLI, HARRINGTON & THOMPSON LLP
`matt@ahtlawfirm.com
`michael@ahtlawfirm.com
`larry@ahlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket