throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Date: July 2, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00020 (Patent 9,264,483), IPR2020-00080 (Patent 10,264,032),
`IPR2020-00081(Patent 10,270,816), IPR2020-00214 (Patent 9,716,732),
`IPR2020-00298 (Patent 9,456,040), IPR2020-00305 (Patent 9,716,732),
`IPR2020-00306 (Patent 10,193,935), IPR2020-00411 (Patent 9,420,011),
`IPR2020-00412 (Patent 9,456,040), IPR2020-00413 (Patent 10,193,935),
`IPR2020-00414 (Patent 9,705,937), IPR2020-00415 (Patent 9,705,937)1
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`AMBER L. HAGY, and KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each case. The parties are
`not authorized to use a caption identifying multiple cases. This is not an expanded panel.
`The panel for IPR2020-00020 and IPR2020-00080 includes Judges McNamara,
`Wormmeester, and Hagy. The panel for the other proceedings includes Judges
`Wormmeester, Hagy, and Sawert.
`
`

`

`
`
`On June 11, 2020, a conference call was conducted among respective
`counsel for the parties, and Judges McNamara, Wormmeester, Hagy, and
`Sawert. A copy of the transcript has been entered into the record.
`See IPR2020-00020, Ex. 1020.2 During the call, the parties discussed the
`request by Petitioner Google LLC (“Petitioner”) to submit, in each of the
`captioned matters, a substitute expert declaration to replace the declaration
`of Petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Leonard Forys, which request was
`opposed by Patent Owner Hammond Development Int’l (“Patent Owner”).
`Id. Counsel for Petitioner stated that, for reasons unrelated to Dr. Forys’
`work in these matters, Dr. Forys can no longer serve as an expert witness for
`Google. Id. Counsel for Patent Owner stated that Patent Owner opposed
`this request on the basis that Petitioner had not provided sufficient
`explanation as to the reason underlying Petitioner’s determination. Id.
`Subsequent to the call, on June 19, 2020, the Board issued an Order
`stating that Petitioner’s requested relief would be granted, conditioned on
`Petitioner’s counsel filing a certification as outlined in the Order, and subject
`to objections, if any, filed by Patent Owner after receipt of the certification.
`Paper 12, 3 (“June 19th Order”). Petitioner filed the required certification
`on June 23, 2020 (Paper 13), and the deadline for Patent Owner’s objections
`passed without submission.
`On July 1, 2020, after the deadline for Patent Owner’s objections,
`counsel for Petitioner advised the Board in an email that “[t]he parties have
`met and conferred regarding procedures for filing the substitute
`declarations,” and “propose the following procedure”:
`
`
`2 Citations to the record herein are to the record in IPR2020-00020. Similar
`papers have been filed in the other captioned cases.
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner will file substitute declarations for its
`•
`substitute expert that are identical to its previous expert’s
`declaration (Ex-1003 in each proceeding), with the following
`revisions:
`
`The substitute declarations will delete the
`•
`qualifications section of Petitioner’s previous expert, but
`provide blank paragraph numbering to preserve the
`original paragraph numbering of the substantive portions
`of the declarations;
`•
`A new qualifications section will be added
`at the end of the declarations with additional numbered
`paragraphs to reflect the qualifications of the substitute
`expert; and
`The substitute declarations will be signed by
`•
`Petitioner’s substitute expert.
`•
`The parties ask that the Board consider references
`in the Petitions and other filed documents to the original expert
`declarations (Ex-1003 in each proceeding) to refer to the
`substitute declarations (to be Ex-1021 in each proceeding).
`•
`Petitioner will file the substitute declarations with
`updated Exhibit Lists promptly for all currently-instituted
`proceedings, and shall work diligently to file substitute
`declarations in proceedings in which a decision to institute has
`not yet been made.
`Ex. 3001.
`Counsel for Petitioner also advised that the parties “have further met
`and conferred regarding schedule adjustments and expect to file adjusted
`schedules to accommodate the substitution of experts.” Id.
`In view of the fact that Petitioner has timely filed the certification as
`required in the June 19th Order and Patent Owner has not objected, the
`panels hereby grant Petitioner’s requested relief, according to the terms and
`procedures as set forth above, which Petitioner represents have been agreed
`to by the parties.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Although Petitioner has not stated a date certain by which it will have
`filed all of the substitute declarations, the Board expects that all such
`substitute declarations will be filed no later than July 31, 2020. Petitioner
`should advise the Board promptly if this date is unworkable or otherwise
`contrary to the parties’ agreement. This deadline is not intended to extend
`any earlier deadline that may have been agreed to by the parties.
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file substitute
`
`expert declarations in each of the captioned cases is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file the substitute expert
`declarations in each of the captioned proceedings no later than July 31,
`2020;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in filing the substitute expert
`
`declarations, Petitioner shall file substitute declarations for its substitute
`expert that are identical to its previous expert’s declaration (Ex. 1003 in each
`proceeding), with the following revisions: (1) the substitute declarations will
`delete the qualifications section of Petitioner’s previous expert, but provide
`blank paragraph numbering to preserve the original paragraph numbering of
`the substantive portions of the declarations; (2) a new qualifications section
`will be added at the end of the declarations with additional numbered
`paragraphs to reflect the qualifications of the substitute expert; and (3) the
`substitute declarations will be signed by Petitioner’s substitute expert.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Board will consider references in the
`Petitions and other filed documents to the original expert declarations
`(Ex. 1003 in each proceeding) to refer to the substitute declarations (to be
`Ex. 1021 in each proceeding).
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Kevin D. Rodkey
`John M. Mulcahy
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT, & DUNNER LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`john.mulcahy@finnegan.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew J. Wright
`Joseph P. Oldaker
`Matthew C. Juren
`NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
`andrew@nbafirm.com
`joseph@nbafirm.com
`matthew@nbafirm.com
`DG-Hammond-IPR@nbafirm.com
`
`
`6
`
`
`

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