throbber
Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`112868-0001-658
`
`Customer No.: 28120
`
`Petitioner: VIZIO, Inc.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`United States Patent No.: 7,915,631
`Inventors: Yoshinori Shimizu, et al.
`Formerly Application No.: 12/548,618
`Issue Date: March 29, 2011
`Filing Date: August 27, 2009
`Former Group Art Unit: 2822
`Former Examiner: Michael Trinh
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND DISPLAY
`
`For:
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b) AND
`REQUEST FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME FOR
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`III.
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 2
`JOINDER IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT WILL EFFICIENTLY
`RESOLVE THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF
`THE ’631 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Petitioner’s Motion is Timely ............................................................... 5
`C.
`The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder ................................. 6
`IV. REQUEST FOR SHORTENED PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TIME ....... 10
`V.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am. Vehicular Sciences LLC,
`IPR2014-01543, Paper 11 (Oct. 24, 2014) ....................................................... 4, 8
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (April 24, 2013) ......................................................... 5
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 (June 20, 2013) .......................................................... 9
`
`Olympus Corp. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.
`IPR2017-01617, Paper 7 (Oct. 17, 2017) ............................................................. 5
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Fujinomaki,
`IPR2017-01017, Paper 12 (May 26, 2017) ................................................... 6, 8, 9
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (Oct. 5, 2015) ............................................................. 6
`STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-00435, Paper 7 (May 4, 2018) ........................................................... 8, 9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 4
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ........................................................................................ 1, 4, 5
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`VIZIO, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests joinder pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) of any proceeding resulting from the
`
`concurrently filed Petition for inter partes review (the “Petition” for “IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-2 and 6-11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 (“the ’631 patent”) with recently
`
`instituted IPR2018-00066 naming Lowe’s, Companies, Inc., Lowe’s Home
`
`Centers, LLC, and L G Sourcing, INC. (collectively, “Lowe’s Petitioners”) as the
`
`petitioners (the “Lowe’s IPR”).1
`
`This motion should be granted because it is timely filed less than one month
`
`after institution of the Lowe’s IPR, and because each of the factors considered by
`
`the Board strongly favors joinder. The Petition is a carbon copy of the original
`
`Lowe’s IPR petition in all material respects. The concurrently filed Petition and
`
`the Lowe’s IPR petition challenge the same claims of the ’631 patent on the same
`
`grounds relying on the same prior art and evidence, including the same expert
`
`testimony. Moreover, absent termination of the Lowe’s Petitioners as parties to the
`
`proceeding, Petitioner agrees to take an “understudy” role as petitioners in
`
`similarly joined proceedings have taken. By doing so, Petitioner’s limited
`
`participation will not impact the timeline of the Lowe’s IPR. The Board routinely
`
`grants joinder under these circumstances.
`
`
`1 Lowe’s Petitioners do not oppose this motion for joinder.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`In conjunction with this motion, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board specify a shortened period of at most four (4) weeks (to June 13, 2018) in
`
`which PO may file a Preliminary Response to this new Petition.2 Given the
`
`identity of issues presented by this Petition and those raised by the Lowe’s IPR, the
`
`proposal for a shortened response period does not impose an undue burden on PO.
`
`If the Board declines to establish the proposed shortened response period for the
`
`Preliminary Response, Petitioner nevertheless maintains its motion for joinder.
`
`II.
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`On March 23, 2016, PO filed a complaint alleging that Petitioner infringes,
`
`inter alia, claims 1 and 4 of the ’631 patent. See Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No.
`
`16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.). PO subsequently served infringement contentions
`
`alleging that Petitioner infringes claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-11 of the ’631 patent.
`
`
`2 Petitioner requests a shortened time period for PO to file a preliminary response
`
`prior to termination of the Lowe’s IPR in view of PO and Lowe’s Petitioners’
`
`recent notice to the district court that they have agreed in principle to settlement
`
`and requested a 30-day stay pending finalization of the parties’ settlement
`
`agreement. Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 16-cv-00545, Dkt. No. 62 at 1 (C.D.
`
`Cal. May 15, 2018). Petitioner will request a call with the Board to discuss
`
`scheduling for this proceeding and the Lowe’s IPR.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`On July 19, 2016, PO filed lawsuits against Lowe’s Petitioners and Mary
`
`Elle Fashions, Inc. for infringement of, inter alia, the ’631 patent. See Nichia
`
`Corporation v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al., No. 5-16-cv-00142 (N.C.W.D.);
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Mary Elle Fashions, Inc. d/b/a/ Meridian Elec. et al., No. 4-16-cv-
`
`01176 (E.D. Mo.).
`
`3.
`
`On August 8, 2016, PO filed a lawsuit against TCL alleging infringement of,
`
`inter alia, the ’631 patent. See Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Tech. Holdings,
`
`Ltd., No. 16-cv-00681 (D. Del.).
`
`4.
`
`On December 30, 2016, Petitioner VIZIO, Inc. filed a petition for IPR
`
`challenging claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11 of the ’631 patent, and the Board denied
`
`institution. IPR2017-00551, Paps. 2, 9.
`
`5.
`
`On August 25, 2017, TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited and
`
`TTE Technology, Inc. filed a petition for IPR challenging claims 1-2, 4, and 6-11
`
`of the ’631 patent, and the proceeding was terminated pursuant to settlement before
`
`institution. IPR2017-02000, Paps. 2, 12.
`
`6.
`
`On October 12, 2017, Lowe’s Petitioners filed a petition for IPR challenging
`
`claims 1-2 and 6-11 of the ’631 patent, and the Board granted institution on April
`
`25, 2018. IPR2018-00066, Paps. 1, 7.
`
`7.
`
`The Petition in the instant case is a copy of the Lowe’s IPR petition in all
`
`material respects, challenging the same claims using the same grounds, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`including the same prior art analysis and expert testimony.
`
`III. JOINDER IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT WILL
`EFFICIENTLY RESOLVE THE VALIDITY OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’631 PATENT
`A. Legal Standard
`The Board has authority to join as a party to an instituted IPR any person
`
`who properly files a petition for IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). A request for joinder
`
`must be filed “no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes
`
`review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Joinder is appropriate when it results in the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of proceedings. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Joinder is particularly appropriate
`
`when a later petitioner presents the identical grounds of unpatentability as an earlier
`
`petitioner. See 157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`
`Kyl) (“The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right - if an inter
`
`partes review is instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an
`
`identical petition will be joined to that proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own
`
`briefs and make its own arguments.”) (emphasis added). See, e.g., Hyundai Motor
`
`Co. v. Am. Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2014-01543, Pap. 11 at 4 (Oct. 24, 2014)
`
`(granting motion wherein impact of joinder “will be minimal” and “joinder will
`
`enhance efficiency, avoid duplication of efforts, and reduce the potential of
`
`inconsistency among proceedings”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`The Board has identified a Representative Order, IPR2013-00004 Paper 15,
`
`regarding motions for joinder, which directs a movant to: (1) “explain the reasons
`
`why joinder is appropriate,” (2) “identify any new ground of unpatentability being
`
`raised” in the petition, (3) explain how the impact on the schedule and costs of the
`
`current proceedings will be minimized, and (4) “specifically address how briefing
`
`and/or discovery may be simplified to minimize schedule impact.” Kyocera Corp.
`
`v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Pap. 15 at 4 (Apr. 24, 2013). Analysis of these
`
`factors here warrants the Board’s use of its discretion to grant the requested
`
`joinder.
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s Motion is Timely
`Petitioner’s Motion is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b)
`
`because it is filed no later than one month after the institution date of the Lowe’s
`
`IPR. The Board instituted the Lowe’s IPR on April 25, 2018 (IPR2018-00066,
`
`Pap. 7), and this motion is filed only three weeks later. The Board routinely
`
`determines that joinder requests filed prior to one month after institution, like
`
`Petitioner’s, are timely. See, e.g., Olympus Corp. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.
`
`KG, IPR2017-01617, Pap. 7 at 3 (Oct. 17, 2017) (finding a motion for joinder was
`
`“timely” when filed prior to one month after institution of the proceeding to which
`
`the petitioner sought joinder).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`C. The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`As discussed below, granting joinder will not enlarge the scope of the Lowe’s IPR
`
`and will not negatively impact the Lowe’s IPR schedule, but a decision denying
`
`joinder could severely prejudice VIZIO. Thus, joinder is appropriate and should
`
`be granted.
`
`1.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate Because the Petitions are
`Substantively Identical
`Joinder is appropriate because the Petition and the Lowe’s IPR petition are
`
`substantively identical, and PO and Lowe’s Petitioners will not be prejudiced if
`
`joinder is granted. The Petition is limited to the same claims, grounds, and prior
`
`art raised in the Lowe’s IPR petition. Moreover, both petitions rely upon the same
`
`expert declaration of Dr. Eric Bretschneider. Ex. 1003 (in both cases). This
`
`strongly supports application of joinder.
`
`Moreover, if joined, Petitioner agrees to take an “understudy” role as
`
`petitioners in other similarly joined proceedings have taken. See, e.g., Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Fujinomaki, IPR2017-01017, Pap. 12 at 5 (May 26, 2017)
`
`(granting institution and joinder where petitioner requested an “understudy role”);
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353, Pap. 11 at 6 (Oct. 5, 2015)
`
`(same). Petitioner would remain in that role until and unless Lowe’s is dismissed
`
`from the proceedings or elects to transfer control to Petitioner, as may occur during
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`advanced settlement negotiations. In either event, Petitioner intends to “step into
`
`the shoes” of the Lowe’s Petitioners and continue to prosecute the joined
`
`proceedings.
`
`Additionally, joinder will promote the efficient determination of validity of
`
`the challenged claims of the ’631 patent. For example, a final written decision on
`
`the validity of the ’631 patent has the potential to minimize issues in the
`
`underlying litigations. Absent joinder, if PO and the Lowe’s Petitioners settle and
`
`move to terminate the Lowe’s IPR proceeding, the PTAB and/or a district court
`
`may be forced to re-adjudicate the same issues on which the Lowe’s Petitioners
`
`have already shown they are reasonably likely to prevail, which would be a waste
`
`of judicial resources.
`
`
`
`Moreover, granting joinder will not prejudice PO or the Lowe’s Petitioners,
`
`while Petitioner could be substantially prejudiced if joinder is denied. The Petition
`
`is substantively identical to the Lowe’s IPR petition and does not raise any new
`
`grounds. Accordingly, PO will not be forced to respond to new prior art or
`
`arguments, and should incur little to no additional cost. In addition, since the
`
`Board only recently issued its institution decision in the Lowe’s IPR on April 25,
`
`2018, joinder should not significantly affect the timing of the Lowe’s IPR. On the
`
`other hand, Petitioner may be prejudiced if joinder is denied. For example, PO and
`
`Lowe’s Petitioners could settle and move to terminate the Lowe’s IPR proceeding.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`No New Grounds Are Presented
`The Petition does not present any new ground of unpatentability. As
`
`2.
`
`mentioned above, the Petition presents only the grounds raised in the Lowe’s IPR,
`
`and is based on the same analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Lowe’s
`
`Petitioners. This strongly favors joinder. See, e.g., STMicroelectronics, Inc. v.
`
`Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-00435, Pap. 7 at 4-5 (May 4, 2018)
`
`(granting joinder where petitioner’s grounds and arguments are identical);
`
`Samsung, IPR2017-01017, Pap. 12 at 4-5 (“Nevertheless, we ‘routinely grant[]
`
`motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder introduces identical arguments
`
`and the same grounds raised in the existing proceeding.’”) (emphasis and alteration
`
`in original); see also Hyundai, IPR2014-01543, Pap. 11 at 2-4.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Lowe’s IPR Trial
`Schedule or Costs for the Existing Review
`Joinder should have no impact on the trial schedule and minimal to no
`
`impact on costs for the existing review due to the substantively identical subject
`
`matter and the early stage of the Lowe’s IPR proceeding (IPR2018-00066). The
`
`Petition is being filed less than a month after the institution of the Lowe’s IPR. It
`
`copies the grounds, prior art analysis, and expert testimony provided in the Lowe’s
`
`IPR petition, so there are no new validity issues for PO to address. Given these
`
`circumstances, Petitioner has included in this motion a request for a shortened
`
`response time for PO’s Preliminary Response in this proceeding. The Board may
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`thereafter be in a position to expeditiously resolve the question of institution.
`
`Thus, the Board need not alter the schedule already set in the Lowe’s IPR, and can
`
`issue a final written decision in a timely manner.
`
`Moreover, as noted above, if joinder is granted, Petitioner has agreed to take
`
`an “understudy” role in the proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner does not believe
`
`that any extension of the schedule will be required by virtue of joinder of VIZIO as
`
`a petitioner to the Lowe’s IPR proceeding, and there will be minimal if any
`
`additional costs. Under these provisions, this factor strongly favors joinder.
`
`4.
`
`Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified
`Given that the Petition is identical to the Lowe’s IPR petition with respect to
`
`the grounds of unpatentability raised in the Lowe’s IPR petition, joining the
`
`proceedings will allow for common briefing and discovery. The Board has
`
`favorably and routinely cited such procedures in granting joinder of IPR
`
`proceedings. See, e.g., STMicroelectronics, IPR2018-00435, Pap. 7 at 4; Samsung,
`
`IPR2017-01017, Pap. 12 at 6; Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00256, Pap. 10 at 9 (June 20, 2013).
`
`Specifically, Petitioner agrees to cooperate and confer with Lowe’s when
`
`filing any papers, and would only assume the primary role if Lowe’s Petitioners
`
`ceases to be a party to the proceedings or turns control over to Petitioner.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner agrees that all filings will be consolidated with Lowe’s
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`Petitioners and subject to the page limits applicable for a single party. Petitioners
`
`will not introduce any argument or discovery not introduced by Lowe’s Petitioners,
`
`and will not request additional depositions or deposition time. Since Petitioner and
`
`Lowe’s Petitioners rely on the same expert declaration, Petitioner agrees to a single
`
`deposition for Petitioner’s expert and a single deposition for PO’s expert.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner agrees to a single hearing, subject to the time limits for a
`
`single party. These procedures will simplify briefing and minimize the burden on
`
`the parties as well as the Board. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR SHORTENED PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TIME
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board specify a shortened period of
`
`at most four (4) weeks (to June 13, 2018) for PO to file a Preliminary Response to
`
`the Petition. Since the issues presented by this Petition and the Lowe’s IPR are
`
`identical, PO will not be burdened by a shortened response period. Moreover,
`
`because this petition is substantively identical to IPR2018-00666, Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits the Board may be in a position to resolve the question of
`
`institution expeditiously after PO’s Preliminary Response, should PO choose to
`
`submit one.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the grounds in
`
`the accompanying Petition for IPR of the ’631 patent be instituted, and that the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`Board grant this Motion for Joinder to join this proceeding with IPR2018-00066.
`
`In addition, Petitioner respectfully requests a shortened response period (to June
`
`13, 2018) for a Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
`
`Dated: May 16, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Gabrielle E. Higgins/
`
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Reg. No. 38,916
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB
`correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP,
`IPRM – Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, MA 02199-3600
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 112868-0001-658
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`AND REQUEST FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME FOR PATENT
`
`OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE has been served by U.S. Express Mail
`
`on Patent Owner indicated for U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 through the following
`
`correspondence address of record:
`
`Correspondence Address: Andrew D. Meikle
`BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
`8110 Gatehouse Road
`Suite 100 East
`FALLS CHURCH VA 22042-1248
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 16, 2018
`
`
`
`Express Mail Label No. EF175142022 US
`
`Catherine Nyarady
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10019
`
`Express Mail Label No. EF 175142075 US
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`By: /Crena Pacheco/
`Name: Crena Pacheco
`
`
`

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