`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: July 11, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00219
`Patent 7,020,106 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER
`37C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00219
`Patent 7,020,106 B2
`
`This Supplemental Scheduling Order (“ORDER”) supplements and
`
`modifies the Scheduling Order (Paper 11) issued on May 5, 2019. The
`ORDER changes DUE DATE 8, the date of Oral Argument (if requested), to
`February 6, 2020.
`Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if
`requested, will be held at the Dallas, Texas, USPTO Regional Office on
`February 6, 2020, commencing at 1 p.m. Central Time. If either party is
`unavailable at that date and time, they are to email the Board within one
`month of this ORDER requesting a conference call to discuss their
`unavailability. Prior to requesting such a conference call, the parties are to
`meet and confer to identify dates and times they are available for the
`conference call, and dates and times they are available for oral argument
`between February 3, 2020 and February 14, 2020.
`The parties may also, within one month of this ORDER, jointly file
`a paper stating their preference for a different hearing location. However,
`the Board may not be able to honor the parties’ preference for a different
`hearing location due to, among other things, the availability of hearing room
`resources and the needs of the panel. The Board will consider the parties’
`requested location and notify the parties if their request for a change in
`hearing location is granted.
`For the convenience of the parties, a REVISED DUE DATE
`APPENDIX is provided below. As noted above, the only difference
`between the REVISED DUE DATE APPENDIX and the DUE DATE
`APPENDIX in Paper 11 is the date for Oral Argument, DUE DATE 8. Oral
`Argument is now scheduled for February 6, 2020.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00219
`Patent 7,020,106 B2
`
`
`REVISED DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................... August 2, 2019
`Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ........................................................... October 25, 2019
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 .......................................................... December 6, 2019
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply to reply
`Patent Owner’s reply to opposition to motion to amend
`(or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend)
`DUE DATE 4 ........................................................ December 27, 2019
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`
`DUE DATE 5 ............................................................ January 17, 2020
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to reply to opposition to motion to amend
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`DUE DATE 6 ............................................................ January 24, 2020
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for prehearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 ............................................................ January 31, 2020
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 8 ............................................................ February 6, 2020
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00219
`Patent 7,020,106 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto J. Devoto
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`Nicholas W. Stephens
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`jjm@fr.com
`nstephens@fr.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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
