throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 20
`Date: October 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)1
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses overlapping issues in the cases listed above.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)
`On October 4, 2021, we issued an order permitting the parties to file
`additional briefing to address the issues of patent ownership and standing.
`See, e.g., IPR2021-00375, Paper 19. To accommodate the additional
`briefing and to minimize the expenditure of resources by the parties, we
`amended the Scheduling Order in each proceeding to change DUE DATE 1
`to December 7, 2021. Id. We now further amend the Scheduling Order in
`each proceeding to change DUE DATES 2 through 8 to enable the Board to
`complete each trial within the one-year statutory deadline, align the
`schedules of all three proceedings, and hold a consolidated hearing for all
`three proceeding on the same day. DUE DATES 2 through 8 are revised
`according to the attached REVISED DUE DATE APPENDIX.
`The parties are still permitted to stipulate to different dates for DUE
`DATES 1, 5, and 6, as well as the portion of DUE DATE 2 related to
`Petitioner’s reply (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 3 for Patent
`Owner’s sur-reply) and the portion of DUE DATE 3 related to Patent
`Owner’s sur-reply (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 7). The
`parties may not stipulate to a different date for the portion of DUE DATE 2
`related to Petitioner’s opposition to a motion to amend, or for the portion of
`DUE DATE 3 related to Patent Owner’s reply to an opposition to a motion
`to amend (or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend) without prior
`authorization from the Board. In stipulating to move any due dates in the
`scheduling order, the parties must be cognizant that the Board requires four
`weeks after the filing of an opposition to the motion to amend (or the due
`date for the opposition, if none is filed) for the Board to issue its preliminary
`guidance, if requested by Patent Owner. A notice of the stipulation,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)
`specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly filed. The
`parties may not stipulate an extension of DUE DATES 4, 7, and 8.
`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 (§ 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-examination
`(§ 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the evidence and cross-
`examination testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)
`REVISED DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ...................................................................... December 7, 2021
`Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................... March 1, 2022
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`DUE DATE 3 ......................................................................... March 29, 2022
`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)2
`DUE DATE 4 ........................................................................... April 12, 2022
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`DUE DATE 5 ........................................................................... April 19, 2022
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to reply to opposition to motion to amend
`Motion to exclude evidence
`DUE DATE 6 ........................................................................... April 26, 2022
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for prehearing conference
`DUE DATE 7 .............................................................................. May 3, 2022
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`DUE DATE 8 ............................................................................ May 12, 2022
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`2 If Patent Owner files neither a reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the
`motion to amend nor a revised motion to amend, the parties are directed to
`Section B(3) in the Scheduling Orders issued with the Decisions on
`Institution.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375 (Patent 8,265,096 B2)
`IPR2021-00377 (Patent 8,249,204 B2)
`IPR2021-00582 (Patent 8,565,326 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan Detrixhe
`Peter Chassman
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`pchassman@reedsmith.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay Kesan
`jay@jaykesan.com
`
`Alfonso Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

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