Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32
`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: December 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Administrative Patent Judge MOORE
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: December 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Administrative Patent Judge MOORE
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`Initial Conference Call
`1.
`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 Scheduling Order
`or proposed motions that have not been authorized in this Order or other
`prior Order or Notice. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Practice Guide”) (guidance in
`preparing for the initial conference call). A request for an initial conference
`call shall include a list of proposed motions, if any, to be discussed during
`the call.
`Protective Order
`2.
`No protective order shall apply to this proceeding until the Board
`enters one. If either party files a motion to seal before entry of a protective
`order, a jointly proposed protective order shall be filed as an exhibit with the
`motion. The Board encourages the parties to adopt the Board’s default
`protective order if they conclude that a protective order is necessary. See
`Practice Guide, App’x B (Default Protective Order). 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 between the two and explain why good cause exists to deviate
`from the default protective order.
`The Board has a strong interest in the public availability of trial
`proceedings. Redactions to documents filed in this proceeding should be
`limited to the minimum amount necessary to protect confidential
`information, and the thrust of the underlying argument or evidence must be
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`clearly discernible from the redacted versions. We also advise the parties
`that information subject to a protective order may 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 Practice
`Guide 48,761.
`3.
`Discovery Disputes
`The Board encourages parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery
`on their own. To the extent that a dispute arises between the parties relating
`to discovery, the parties must 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.
`4.
`Testimony
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to
`the Trial Practice Guide, 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.
`5.
`Cross-Examination
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date:
`Cross-examination ordinarily takes place after any supplemental evidence is
`due. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`Cross-examination ordinarily 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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`6.
`Oral Argument
`Requests for oral argument must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a).
`To permit the Board sufficient time to schedule the oral argument, the
`parties may not stipulate to an extension of the request for oral argument
`beyond the date set forth in the Due Date Appendix.
`Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if
`requested, will be held at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria.
`Seating in the Board’s hearing rooms may be limited, and will be
`available on a first-come, first-served basis. If either party anticipates that
`more than five (5) individuals will attend the argument on its behalf, the
`party should notify the Board as soon as possible, and no later than the
`request for oral argument. Parties should note that the earlier a request for
`accommodation is made, the more likely the Board will be able to
`accommodate additional individuals.
`
`
`B. DUE DATES
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate 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 an extension of DUE
`DATES 6 and 7, or to the requests for oral hearing.
`In stipulating 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 (§ 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-examination
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`(§ 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the evidence and cross-
`examination testimony.
`1. DUE DATE 1
`Patent Owner may file—
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120). If Patent
`Owner elects not to file a response, Patent Owner must arrange a
`conference call with the parties and the Board. Patent Owner is
`cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the
`response may be deemed waived.
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121). 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). To satisfy this
`requirement, Patent Owner should request a conference call with the
`Board no later than two weeks prior to DUE DATE 1. The parties are
`directed to the Board’s Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of
`Aqua Products (https://go.usa.gov/xU6YV), and Western Digital
`Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc., Case IPR2018-00082 (PTAB April 25,
`2018) (Paper 13) (providing information and guidance on motions to
`amend). Neither party may incorporate by reference any analysis or
`reasoning expressed in the Decision on Institution.
`2. DUE DATE 2
`Petitioner may file a reply to the Patent Owner’s response.
`Petitioner may file an opposition to the motion to amend.
`3. DUE DATE 3
`Patent Owner may file a sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner may file a reply to the opposition to the motion to
`amend.
`4. DUE DATE 4
`Petitioner may file a sur-reply to Patent Owner’s reply to the
`opposition to the motion to amend.
`Either party may file a motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(c)).
`5. DUE DATE 5
`Either party may file an opposition to a motion to exclude evidence.
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Either party may file a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence.
`Either party may request that the Board hold a pre-hearing conference.
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) shall be held on this
`date. The Board expects that the hearing on DUE DATE 7 will involve both
`above-captioned cases. Approximately one month prior to the argument, the
`Board will issue an order setting the start time of the hearing and the
`procedures that will govern the parties’ arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................... March 20, 2019
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 .................................................................. June 20, 2019
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ................................................................... July 22, 2019
`Patent owner’s sur-reply to reply
`Patent owner’s reply to opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .............................................................. August 20, 2019
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to reply to opposition to motion to amend
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`
`DUE DATE 5 .............................................................. August 27, 2019
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 .......................................................... September 3, 2019
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for prehearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 ........................................................ September 17, 2019
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Roshan Mansinghani
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`David Cavanaugh
`Dan Williams
`Jonathan Robe
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com
`jonathan.robe@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Chris Coulson
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`
`Michael N. Zachary
`mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`mshanahan@generalpatent.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
