Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 33
`Date: October 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01279
`Patent 7,844,037 B2
`____________
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Modifying Scheduling Order
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 33
`Date: October 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01279
`Patent 7,844,037 B2
`____________
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Modifying Scheduling Order
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01279
`Patent 7,844,037 B2
`
`
`In an e-mail dated September 27, 2019, Petitioner requested to
`postpone the oral hearing due to a family emergency involving Petitioner’s
`expert. Exhibit 3002. Specifically, Petitioner states that
`last week
`the wife of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Narayan
`Mandayam, was involved in a serious car accident (described in
`this article). She sustained severe injuries in the accident
`necessitating multiple surgeries. Dr. Mandayam indicates that
`his wife is slowly recovering, but that he will be required to focus
`all of his time and energy over the next several weeks caring for
`her. Thus, he is unavailable, until at least the last week of
`October.
`Id. According to Petitioner, because of Dr. Mandayam’s unavailability
`“Patent Owner was unable to depose Dr. Mandayam on [September 25] as
`scheduled.” Id. Petitioner further notes that “Patent Owner’s Surreply and
`Reply in Support of the Motion to Amend are currently due on [October 2],
`but obviously Patent Owner cannot prepare these filings without deposing
`Petitioner’s expert on his supplemental declaration filed in support of
`Petitioner’s Reply and Opposition to the Motion to Amend.” Id. Petitioner
`requests a postponement and modification of the schedule to “compensate
`for Dr. Mandayam’s unforeseen period of unavailability, or, alternatively, to
`allow Petitioner to engage a new expert to step in for Dr. Mandayam and
`adopt his supplemental declaration.” Id. According to the e-mail, Patent
`Owner did not object to the postponement. Id.
`On October 2, 2019, a call was held between representatives of the
`parties and Administrative Patent Judges Fishman, Wormmeester, and
`Howard. During the call, counsel for Petitioner indicated that they would
`need a one-month extension so that (1) Dr. Mandayam would be ready for
`his deposition or (2) to allow Petitioner to obtain a new expert and prepare
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01279
`Patent 7,844,037 B2
`
`for a deposition. Counsel for both parties also stated that they did not plan
`on filing any motions to exclude evidence at this time and that they
`understood that the modification of the scheduling order may result in the
`need for a good cause extension pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Additionally, Patent Owner indicated that if
`Petitioner used a substitute expert witness who adopted Dr. Mandayam’s
`testimony, Patent Owner would not object to the testimony as not being the
`substitute expert’s opinion.
`In view of (1) the injuries to Dr. Mandayam’s wife and his need to
`focus his time and energy on her recovery and (2) the current due dates for
`the remaining briefs, good cause exists for modifying the schedule by
`approximately one month. Petitioner can either wait for Dr. Mandayam to
`be available for his deposition or arrange for a substitute expert who will
`adopt Dr. Mandayam’s testimony. However, absent extraordinary
`circumstances, no further extensions of the oral hearing date will be
`considered based on the availability of Petitioner’s expert.
`Furthermore, based on the representations of the parties, the
`scheduling order will not include dates for the filing of a motion to exclude.
`If either party wants to file a motion to exclude evidence submitted after
`today, the party shall promptly request via e-mail authorization to file a
`motion to exclude.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Due Date #3 is rescheduled from October 2, 2019 to
`October 30, 2019;
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01279
`Patent 7,844,037 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Date #4 (regarding Petitioner’s sur-
`reply to Patent Owner’s reply to the opposition to the motion to amend) is
`rescheduled from October 14, 2019 to November 12, 2019;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Date #4 (regarding the request for
`oral argument) is rescheduled from October 2, 2019 to October 30, 2019;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Date #6 (regarding the date a party
`may request that the Board hold a pre-hearing conference) is rescheduled
`from October 16, 2019 to November 13, 2019;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Date #7 is rescheduled from October
`30, 2019 to November 20, 2019;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Dates #4 and #7 may not be
`modified by stipulation; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties have a conflict with Due
`Date #7, the parties shall notify the Board by a joint e-mail addressed to
`Trials@uspto.gov within three business days of the issuance of this Order
`and identify alternative dates during the week of November 18, 2019 and
`December 2, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01279
`Patent 7,844,037 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`Thomas Rozylowicz
`Timothy Riffe
`Thad Kodish
`Dan Smith
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`tar@fr.com
`riffe@fr.com
`tkodish@fr.com
`dsmith@fr.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian Oaks
`Chad Walters
`Charles Yeh
`Eliot Williams
`Joseph Akalski
`Jessica Lin
`Puneet Kohli
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com
`charlesyyeh@gmail.com
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`joseph.akalski@bakerbotts.com
`jessica.lin@bakerbotts.com
`puneet.kohli@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
