`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS USA, INC.,
` Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00491
`Patent No. 7,934,843
`____________
`
`Mailed: January 18, 2018
`Before Debra A. Vitus, Trial Paralegal
`
`NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION
`AND
`TIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`The petition for “inter partes review,” filed in the above proceeding
`has been accorded the filing date of 01/14/2018.
`Patent Owner may file a preliminary response to the petition no later
`than three months from the date of this notice. The preliminary response is
`limited to setting forth the reasons why the requested review should not be
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00491
`Patent No. 7,934,843
`
`instituted. Patent Owner may also file an election to waive the preliminary
`response to expedite the proceeding. For more information, please consult
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012),
`which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
`Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory
`notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of
`the petition.
`The parties are encouraged to use the heading on the first page of this
`Notice for all future filings in the proceeding.
`The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of
`counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause. The parties are
`authorized to file motions for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c). Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order --
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639,
`Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.”
`The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the
`Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB. To file documents, users
`must register with PTAB E2E. Information regarding how to register with
`and use PTAB E2E is available at the Board Web site.
`If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please contact
`Debra Vitus at 571-272-2039 or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-
`272-7822.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00491
`Patent No. 7,934,843
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Charles H. Sanders
`Anant K. Saraswat
`Jonathan M. Strang
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`charles.sanders@lw.com
`anant.saraswat@lw.com
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Frederick Burkhart
`VAN DYKE, GARDNER, LINN & BURKHART, LLP
`2851 Charleviox Drive, SE, Suite 207
`Grand Rapids, MI 49546
`
`Thomas D. Rein
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One S. Dearborn Street
`Chicago, IL 60603
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00491
`Patent No. 7,934,843
`
`NOTICE CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) strongly encourages parties who are
`considering settlement to consider alternative dispute resolution as a means of settling the
`issues that may be raised in an AIA trial proceeding. Many AIA trials are settled prior to
`a Final Written Decision. Those considering settlement may wish to consider alternative
`dispute resolution techniques early in a proceeding to produce a quicker, mutually
`agreeable resolution of a dispute or to at least narrow the scope of matters in dispute.
`Alternative dispute resolution has the potential to save parties time and money.
`
`Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual property
`field, offer alternative dispute resolution services. Listed below are the names and
`addresses of several such organizations. The listings are provided for the convenience of
`parties involved in cases before the PTAB; the PTAB does not sponsor or endorse any
`particular organization’s alternative dispute
`resolution services.
`
`In addition,
`consideration may be given to utilizing independent alternative dispute resolution firms.
`Such firms may be located through a standard keyword Internet search.
`
`
`CPR
`INSTITUTE
`FOR DISPUTE
`RESOLUTION
`
`AMERICAN
`BAR
`ASSOCIATION
`(ABA)
`
`Telephone :
`(202) 662-1000
`
`N/A
`1050 Connecticut
`Ave, NW
`Washington D.C.
`20036
`
`www.americanba
`r.org
`
`AMERICAN
`INTELLECTU
`AL PROPERTY
`LAW
`ASSOCIATION
`(AIPLA)
`Telephone:
`(703) 415-0780
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 949-6490
`
`Fax: (212) 949-
`8859
`575 Lexington
`Ave
`New York, NY
`10022
`
`Fax: (703) 415-
`0786
`241 18th Street,
`South, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA
`22202
`
`AMERICAN
`ARBITRATI
`ON
`ASSOCIATI
`ON (AAA)
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 484-
`3266
`Fax: (212)
`307-4387
`140 West 51st
`Street
`
`New York,
`NY 10020
`
`WORLD
`INTELLECTU
`AL
`PROPERTY
`ORGANIZATI
`ON (WIPO)
`
`Telephone:
`41 22 338 9111
`Fax: 41 22 733
`5428
`34, chemin des
`Colombettes
`CH-1211
`Geneva 20,
`Switzerland
`
`www.adr.org www.wipo.int
`
`www.cpradr.org www.aipla.org
`
`If parties to an AIA trial proceeding consider using alternative dispute resolution,
`
`the PTAB would like to know whether the parties ultimately decided to engage in
`alternative dispute resolution and the reasons why or why not. If the parties actually
`engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what
`mechanism (e.g., arbitration, mediation, etc.) was used and the general result. Such a
`statement from the parties is not required but would be helpful to the PTAB in assessing
`the value of alternative dispute resolution to parties involved in AIA trial proceedings.
`To report an experience with ADR, please forward a summary of the particulars to the
`following email address: PTAB_ADR_Comments@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`4
`
`