`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`1.
`Initial Conference Call
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 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 at 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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`Oral Argument
`6.
`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 date(s),
`must be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate an extension of DUE
`DATES 6 and 7, or to the request 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 (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`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
`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
`before 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),
`Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc., Case IPR2018-00082 (PTAB
`Apr. 25, 2018) (Paper 13) (informative) (providing information and
`guidance on motions to amend), and Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`Cases IPR2018-01129, 01130 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (Paper 15) (providing
`information and guidance on motions to amend).
`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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`3. DUE DATE 3
`Patent Owner may file a sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply.
`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 prehearing conference.
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) shall be held on this
`date. Approximately one month before 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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`DUE DATE 1 .................................................................. June 11, 2019
`Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 .......................................................... September 11, 2019
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ..............................................................October 11, 2019
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply to the response to the
`petition
`Patent Owner’s reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to
`amend
`DUE DATE 4 .......................................................... November 12, 2019
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to Patent Owner’s reply to the opposition to the
`motion to amend
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument (parties may not stipulate to an extension
`for the request for oral argument)
`DUE DATE 5 .......................................................... November 15, 2019
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 .......................................................... November 22, 2019
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for prehearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 .......................................................... December 12, 2019
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01664
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip W. Citroën
`Michael A. Wolfe
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`michaelwolfe@paulhastings.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`8
`
`