`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: April 23, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MITSUBA CORPORATION AND
`AMERICAN MITSUBA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`1. Requests for an Initial Conference Call
`Unless at least one of the parties requests otherwise, we will not
`
`conduct an initial conference call as described in the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`parties must request an initial conference call if either party is aware of
`any conflicts or concerns with DUE DATES 6 or 7 set forth in the
`Appendix of this Scheduling Order. Any request for an initial conference
`call must be made no later than 25 days after the institution of trial.
`2. Standing Procedure for Requests for Conference Calls
`If the parties request a conference call, including an initial conference
`
`call, the parties must follow these procedures:
`a. Prior to requesting a conference call, the parties must confer in an
`effort to resolve any issue to be discussed with the Board, or be
`prepared to explain to the Board why such a conference was not
`possible.
`b. Parties may request a conference call by contacting the Board at
`the email address or telephone number listed above the caption of
`this Order. Requests via email are expected and preferred;
`requests via telephone should be reserved for time-critical
`circumstances. Requests by email must copy opposing counsel.
`Requests by telephone should include opposing counsel as
`practicable.
`c. The request must include a list of proposed issues and/or motions
`to be discussed during the call.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`d. The request may include a brief background discussion of the
`issue(s) and/or motion(s) to be discussed, but must not include
`arguments.
`e. The request must certify that the parties conferred in accordance
`with 2.a., and must indicate the result of the conference (e.g.,
`whether the non-requesting party opposes or does not oppose the
`request).
`f. The request must include a list of dates and times when both
`parties are available for the call.
`3. Protective Order
`A protective order does not exist in this proceeding unless the parties
`
`file one and the Board approves it. If either party files a motion to seal
`before entry of a protective order, a jointly proposed protective order should
`be presented as an exhibit to the motion. We encourage the parties to adopt
`the Board’s default protective order if they conclude that a protective order
`is necessary. See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties choose
`to propose a protective order deviating from the default protective order,
`they must submit the proposed protective order jointly along with a marked-
`up comparison of the proposed and default protective orders showing the
`differences; and the parties must explain why the proposed deviations from
`the default protective order are necessary.
`
`In order to balance the needs of the parties to submit confidential
`information with the need to maintain a complete and understandable file
`history for public notice purposes, we advise the parties that redactions to
`documents filed in this proceeding should be limited to isolated passages
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`consisting entirely of confidential information, and that the thrust of the
`underlying argument or evidence must be clearly discernible from the
`redacted versions. We also advise the parties that information subject to a
`protective order will become public if identified in a final written decision in
`this proceeding, and that a motion to expunge the information will not
`necessarily prevail over the public interest in maintaining a complete and
`understandable file history. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. at 48,761.
`4. Motions to Amend
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization
`
`from the Board. Nevertheless, Patent Owner must confer with the Board
`before filing such a motion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Patent Owner should
`arrange for a conference call with the panel and opposing counsel at least one
`week before DUE DATE 1 in order to satisfy the conferral requirement.
`5. 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: (1) certify that it has conferred
`with the other party in an effort to resolve the dispute; (2) identify with
`specificity the issues for which agreement has not been reached; (3) identify
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`the precise relief to be sought; and (4) propose specific dates and times at
`which both parties are available for the conference call.
`6. Depositions
`The parties are advised 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.
`
`Whenever a party submits a deposition transcript as an exhibit in this
`proceeding, the submitting party shall file the full transcript of the deposition
`rather than excerpts of only those portions being cited. After a deposition
`transcript has been submitted as an exhibit, all parties who subsequently cite
`to portions of the transcript shall cite to the first-filed exhibit rather than
`submitting another copy of the same transcript.
`7. Cross-Examination
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`a. Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is due.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`b. 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.
`8. Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination
`A motion for observation on cross-examination provides the parties
`
`with a mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`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.
`
`B. 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. Due to scheduling constraints, such as hearing room
`availability, the parties must request a conference call with the panel if
`there are any conflicts that arise with DUE DATE 7 as soon as
`practicable, which will be modified only upon a showing of good cause.
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`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.
`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 motion for an observation on the cross-
`examination testimony of a reply witness (see section A.7, above)
`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.
`5. DUE DATE 5
`a. Each party must file any reply to a petitioner observation on cross-
`examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................. July 23, 2018
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ...................................................................... October 23, 2018
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ................................................................... November 23, 2018
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .......................................................................... January 4, 2019
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ....................................................................... January 18, 2019
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ....................................................................... January 25, 2019
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ....................................................................... February 6, 2019
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00071
`Patent 7,067,952 B2
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eric Hayes
`Adam Kaufmann
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`eric.hayes@kirkland.com
`adam.kaufmann@kirkland.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. King
`Ted M. Cannon
`Bridget A. Smith
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2jrk@knobbe.com
`2tmc@knobbe.com
`2bzs@knobbe.com
`
`Tim R. Seeley
`James R. Hietala
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`tim@intven.com
`jhietala@intven.com
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`