Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Date: June 8, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Date: June 8, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1. Requests for an Initial Conference Call
`Unless a party 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). To request an initial
`conference call, a party shall do so no later than 21 days after the institution
`of trial. A request for a conference call shall include: (a) a list of proposed
`motions, if any, and topics to be discussed during the call and (b) a list of
`dates and times when the parties are available for the call. The parties shall
`be prepared to discuss during the initial conference call their concerns, if
`any, relating to the schedule in this proceeding as set forth below.
`
`2. Protective Order
`A protective order does not exist in this proceeding unless and until
`the parties file a proposed protective order and the Board approves it. 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. at 48,771 (Appendix B). If
`the parties propose a protective order deviating from the default protective
`order, they must submit the proposed protective order along with a marked-
`up comparison of the proposed and default protective orders showing the
`differences.
`
`3. 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`
`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.
`Also, please refer to the Office’s recent “Guidance on Motions to Amend in
`view of Aqua Products” (Nov. 21, 2017).
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_on_motions_t
`o_amend_11_2017.pdf.
`
`4. Discovery Disputes
`If 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 an 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
`during which both parties are available for the conference call.
`
`5. Depositions
`The Testimony Guidelines appended to the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,772–71 (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,
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`
`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
`and not mere excerpts of specific portions being cited.
`
`6. 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 a week before the filing
`date for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to
`be used. Id.
`
`7. Observations on Cross-Examination
`A party may file one paper containing observations on cross-
`examination of one or more reply witnesses when no further substantive
`paper is permitted after the reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. Each 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, and the entire paper must comply with the page limit requirement
`for motions as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(v). The opposing party
`may file a responsive paper containing equally concise and specific
`responses to the observations, which paper must comply with the same page
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`
`limit requirement.
`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.
`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.
`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. The patent owner is cautioned that any patentability arguments
`that are relevant to a ground on which trial has been instituted and which are
`not raised in a 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`
`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 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 responses to an opposing party’s
`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.
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply to an opposition to 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ..................................................................... September 7, 2018
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ...................................................................... December 7, 2018
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 .......................................................................... January 7, 2019
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ........................................................................ January 28, 2019
`Observations on cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ...................................................................... February 11, 2019
`Response to observations
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ...................................................................... February 19, 2019
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ...................................................................... February 28, 2019
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00199
`Patent 7,092,671 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`David Cavanaugh
`David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Roshan Mansinghani
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Michael Van Handel
`Michael.vanhandel@wilmerhale.com
`
`Ellyar Barazesh
`Ellyar.barazesh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Ryan Loveless
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean Burdick
`Sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Brett Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`James Etheridge
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Jeffrey Huang
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`8
`
`
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
