From: Hayes, Jennifer <jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 5:12 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Kushan, Jeffrey P. <jkushan@sidley.com>; Smith, Kyle <kyle.smith@sidley.com>; Border, Scott
`<sborder@sidley.com>; Sidley Apple v. MemoryWeb IPRs <SidleyAppleMemoryWebIPRs@sidley.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-00031, -00032, -00033 and PGR2022-00006
`
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`
`Your Honors,
`
`
`
`The parties have met and conferred and agree that a consolidated hearing for all four cases with a single
`transcript would make sense. Memory Web respectfully requests two hours per side for the
`hearing. Apple has indicated that they support either MemoryWeb’s request for two hours or the
`Board’s proposal of 1.5 hours per side.
`
`
`
`The parties are available for an in person hearing in Alexandria or San Jose.
`
`
`
`Please let us know if we can provide any further information.
`
`
`
`Best,
`
`Jennifer
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`From: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 8:06 AM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>; Hayes, Jennifer <jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com>
`Cc: Kushan, Jeffrey P. <jkushan@sidley.com>; Smith, Kyle <kyle.smith@sidley.com>; Border, Scott
`<sborder@sidley.com>; Sidley Apple v. MemoryWeb IPRs <SidleyAppleMemoryWebIPRs@sidley.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-00031, -00032, -00033 and PGR2022-00006
`
`[EXTERNAL E-MAIL]
`Be Aware of Links and Attachments
`
`Counsel:
`
`
`
`The panel is generally agreeable to the revised schedule you have proposed for these cases, however the
`prospect of holding four separate hearings on a single day is somewhat concerning. How does counsel
`envision the hearings would be handled on that day? If there are economies to be gained as counsel
`suggests, then perhaps having a consolidated hearing for all four cases with a single transcript would
`make sense. We would also need to limit the total amount of argument time allocated to a consolidated
`hearing. Would counsel be able to complete all their arguments if the total amount of argument time
`allocated to a consolidated hearing were limited to 3 hours (1.5 hours per side)? Please advise if this is
`acceptable and we will issue an order in due course.
`
`
`
`The scheduling orders in these proceedings provided that the final hearings, if requested by either party,
`would take place at the USPTO Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia (IPR2022-00032 and PGR2022-
`00006, and alternatively for IPR2022-00031 and IPR2022-00033) or the USPTO Silicon Valley Regional
`Office in San Jose, California (IPR2022-00031 and IPR2022-00033, and alternatively PGR2022-
`00006). In light of the USPTO re-opening, the consolidated hearing in this proceeding may be conducted
`in person at the USPTO Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, USPTO Silicon Valley Regional Office in
`San Jose, California, or virtually by video conference
`
`
`
`For the parties’ information in making this decision, if the hearing is held in Alexandria or San Jose, one
`judge will appear in-person from the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, one judge will appear in-person
`from the San Jose, California, USPTO Regional Office, and two judges will appear virtually by video
`conference.
`
`
`
`Please advise as to the parties preference in this regard.
`
`
`
`Regards,
`
`
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`
`Supervisory Paralegal
`
`

`

`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`USPTO
`
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`
`(571)272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`From: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:33 PM
`To: Hayes, Jennifer <jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com>; Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Kushan, Jeffrey P. <jkushan@sidley.com>; Smith, Kyle <kyle.smith@sidley.com>; Border, Scott
`<sborder@sidley.com>; Sidley Apple v. MemoryWeb IPRs <SidleyAppleMemoryWebIPRs@sidley.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-00031, -00032, -00033 and PGR2022-00006
`
`
`Counsel,
`
` A
`
` conference call has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 19th at 11:00 AM ET. Dial-in information is below:
`
`
`
`
`
`888-452-0457
`
`Passcode:
`
`5796779#
`
`Thank you,
`
`
`
`Megan Carlson
`
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(571) 272-1650
`
`Megan.Carlson@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`From: Hayes, Jennifer <jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com>
`Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 2:17 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Kushan, Jeffrey P. <jkushan@sidley.com>; Smith, Kyle <kyle.smith@sidley.com>; Border, Scott
`<sborder@sidley.com>; Sidley Apple v. MemoryWeb IPRs <SidleyAppleMemoryWebIPRs@sidley.com>
`Subject: IPR2022-00031, -00032, -00033 and PGR2022-00006
`
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`
`Dear Honorable Board:
`
`
`
`The parties write to request a conference with the Board to discuss a change in the schedules of due
`dates 1-8 in IPR2022-00031, IPR2022-00032, IPR2022-00033 and PGR2022-00006. Specifically, the
`parties propose that due dates 1-8 in IPR2022-00031, IPR2022-00033 and PGR2022-00006 be changed
`to be aligned and on the same schedule. The current deadlines as well as the proposed revised due
`dates are summarized in the table below:
`
`
`
`
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`DUE DATE 1
`
`DUE DATE 2
`
`DUE DATE 3
`
`DUE DATE 4
`
`DUE DATE 5
`
`DUE DATE 6
`
`DUE DATE 7
`
`DUE DATE 8
`
`ORIGINAL DUE DATES
`(FROM SCHEDULING ORDERS)
`
`IPR2022-00031,
`IPR2022-00033
`
`PGR2022-00006
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
`[PROPOSED] REVISED
`DUE DATES
`
`Aug. 12, 2022
`
`Sept. 2, 2022
`
`Oct. 3, 2022
`
`Sept. 23, 2022
`
`Nov. 4, 2022
`
`Nov. 25, 2022
`
`Dec. 27, 2022
`
`Dec. 16, 2022
`
`Jan. 6, 2023
`
`Feb. 7, 2023
`
`Jan. 6, 2023
`
`Jan. 27, 2023
`
`Feb. 28, 2023
`
`Jan. 27, 2023
`
`Feb. 17, 2023
`
`Mar. 21, 2023
`
`Feb. 3, 2023
`
`Feb. 24, 2023
`
`Mar. 28, 2023
`
`Feb. 10, 2023
`
`Mar. 3, 2023
`
`Apr. 4, 2023
`
`Dec. 5, 2022
`
`Jan. 20, 2023
`
`Jan. 27, 2023
`
`Feb. 17, 2023
`
`Feb. 24, 2023
`
`Mar. 3, 2023
`
`Feb. 24, 2023
`
`Mar. 14, 2023
`
`Apr. 17, 2023
`
`Mar. 14, 2023
`
`

`

`The parties understand that they are not typically permitted to stipulate to an extension of dates 4, 7
`and 8. However, the parties believe that judicial resources would be conserved if the schedules for each
`of these proceedings were aligned.
`
`
`
`The parties are available for a call with the Board during the below dates and times:
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`July 18: 11-12 and 1:30-5:30 ET
`July 19: 11-12:30 and 2-3 ET
`July 20: 11-1:30 ET
`
`
`
`Best Regards,
`
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`
`Reg. No. 50,845
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`Partner
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`T/ 213.629.6179 M/ 650.575.2400 F/ 866.781.9391
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
`nixonpeabody.com @NixonPeabodyLLP
`
`
`
`This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges. The
`information is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) of the message. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify
`the sender immediately and delete the message from your email system. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this
`message by other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you.
`
`
`