`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 25
`Date: May 25, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01449
`Patent 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent 7,149,867
`
`
`On May 18, 2021, Patent Owner contacted the Board by email to
`request “guidance regarding the current schedule in light of the Board’s
`pending decision on Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental
`Information.” Ex. 3005. Patent Owner stated that it “may seek an extension
`of the due date [May 26, 2021] for its Patent Owner Response and Motion to
`Amend based on the guidance that we receive from the Board.” Id.
`On May 24, 2021, a conference call was held with counsel for the
`parties and Judges Szpondowski, Deshpande, and Anderson. During the
`call, Patent Owner requested guidance as to the timing of the Board’s
`decision on Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental (Paper 21,
`“Motion”),1 and stated that if the Motion is granted, Patent Owner may need
`to conduct additional depositions. Patent Owner also suggested moving the
`due date of the Response to June 3, 2021. Petitioner opposed moving the
`due date of the Response, and suggested Patent Owner submit an additional
`paper, if necessary. Petitioner also argued that Patent Owner should have
`raised this timing issue sooner.
`The Board indicated to the parties that a decision on the Motion was
`forthcoming. However, the Board recognized that it seemed reasonable to
`move the due date of the Patent Owner Response so that Patent Owner has
`the benefit of the Board’s decision on the Motion in preparing its Response,
`including any discovery. The Board also reminded the parties that they may
`adjust the due date of the Response without the Board’s authorization. The
`parties indicated that they would work together on a schedule for the
`Response.
`
`1 The Motion to Submit Supplemental Information was fully briefed as of
`May 12, 2021.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent 7,149,867
`
`
`Petitioner requested that (1) the due date for Patent Owner’s Motion
`to Amend remain on May 26, 2021, and (2) Patent Owner identify, for
`scheduling purposes, which of the five individuals they would like to
`depose, assuming the Board grants the Motion. Patent Owner agreed to
`identify the individuals, but suggested keeping the Motion to Amend on the
`same schedule as the Response. Petitioner raised concerns as to
`compression of the schedule if the Motion to Amend date is also moved.
`The Board indicated that there seemed to be no reason to move the
`due date on the Motion to Amend, as it was unrelated to the Motion, but that
`the parties should work together on a schedule for the Response, and if
`necessary, the Reply and Sur-Reply. The Board reminded the parties to file
`a stipulation of the schedule once they reached a compromise.
`At the end of the conference call, the parties agreed to the following
`Order.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer to determine an
`appropriate schedule for the Response and, if necessary, the Reply and Sur-
`Reply; and
`FURTHER ORDERED, the deadline for Patent Owner to file a
`motion to amend, Due Date 1, remains May 26, 2021 (see Paper 14, 10 (Due
`Date Appendix)).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent 7,149,867
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Brian Nash
`Brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Evan Finkel
`Evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Matthew Hindman
`Matthew.hindman@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay Kesan
`jay@jaykesan.com
`
`Ari Rafilson
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`