Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: November 18, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The combined caption is for administrative convenience only and does not
`indicate that the above-listed proceedings have been joined. The parties are
`not authorized to use this caption without express permission from the
`Board.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: November 18, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The combined caption is for administrative convenience only and does not
`indicate that the above-listed proceedings have been joined. The parties are
`not authorized to use this caption without express permission from the
`Board.
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`Initial and Additional Conference Calls
`1.
`The parties are directed to contact the Board within a month of this
`Order if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling Order
`or proposed motions that have not been authorized in this Order or other
`prior Order or Notice. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“Consolidated
`Practice Guide”)2 at 9–10, 65 (guidance in preparing for a conference call);
`see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019). A request for an initial
`conference call shall include a list of proposed motions, if any, to be
`discussed during the call.
`The parties may request additional conference calls as needed. Any
`email requesting a conference call with the Board should: (a) copy all
`parties, (b) indicate generally the relief being requested or the subject matter
`of the conference call, (c) include multiple times when all parties are
`available, (d) state whether the opposing party opposes any relief requested,
`and (e) if opposed, either certify that the parties have met and conferred
`telephonically or in person to attempt to reach agreement, or explain why
`such meet and confer did not occur. The email may not contain substantive
`argument and, unless otherwise authorized, may not include attachments.
`See Consolidated Practice Guide at 9–10.
`2.
`Protective Order
`No protective order shall apply to this proceeding until the Board
`enters one. If either party files a motion to seal before entry of a protective
`order, a jointly proposed protective order shall be filed as an exhibit with the
`
`2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`motion. It is the responsibility of the party whose confidential information is
`at issue, not necessarily the proffering party, to file the motion to seal. 3 The
`Board encourages the parties to adopt the Board’s default protective order if
`they conclude that a protective order is necessary. See Consolidated Practice
`Guide at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default
`Protective Order). If the parties choose to propose a protective order
`deviating from the default protective order, they must submit the proposed
`protective order jointly along with a marked-up comparison of the proposed
`and default protective orders showing the differences between the two and
`explain why good cause exists to deviate from the default protective order.
`The Board has a strong interest in the public availability of trial
`proceedings. Redactions to documents filed in this proceeding should be
`limited to the minimum amount necessary to protect confidential
`information, and the thrust of the underlying argument or evidence must be
`clearly discernible from the redacted versions. We also advise the parties
`that information subject to a protective order may become public if
`identified in a final written decision in this proceeding, and that a motion to
`expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over the public interest
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history. See Consolidated
`Practice Guide at 21–22.
`Discovery Disputes
`3.
`The Board encourages parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery
`on their own. To the extent that a dispute arises between the parties relating
`
`
`3 If the entity whose confidential information is at issue is not a party to the
`proceeding, please contact the Board.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`to discovery, the parties must meet and confer to resolve such a dispute
`before contacting the Board. If attempts to resolve the dispute fail, a party
`may request a conference call with the Board.
`4.
`Testimony
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to
`the Consolidated Practice Guide at 127–130 (App. D, Testimony Guidelines)
`apply to this proceeding. The Board may impose an appropriate sanction for
`failure to adhere to the Testimony Guidelines. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For
`example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may
`be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination
`of a witness.
`
`Cross-Examination
`5.
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date:
`Cross-examination ordinarily takes place after any supplemental evidence is
`due. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`Cross-examination ordinarily ends no later than a week before the
`filing date for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is
`expected to be used. Id.
`
`6. Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization
`from the Board. Nevertheless, Patent Owner must confer with the Board
`before filing such a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). To satisfy this
`requirement, Patent Owner should request a conference call with the Board
`no later than two weeks prior to DUE DATE 1. See Section B below
`regarding DUE DATES.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`
`Any motion to amend and briefing related to such a motion shall
`comply with the rules pertaining to motions to amend (37 C.F.R. § 42.121)
`and the practices and procedures described in Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom,
`Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential).
`Patent Owner has the option to receive preliminary guidance from the
`Board on its motion to amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(e). If Patent Owner
`elects to request preliminary guidance from the Board on its motion, it must
`do so in its motion to amend filed on DUE DATE 1. Id. at
`§ 42.121(a)(1)(ii).
`At DUE DATE 3, Patent Owner may file a reply to the opposition to
`the motion to amend and/or the preliminary guidance. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.121(e)(3). In lieu of a reply, Patent Owner has the option to file a
`revised motion to amend that addresses the issues raised in the preliminary
`guidance or in petitioner’s opposition to the motion to amend. Id. at
`§ 42.121(f)(1)-(2). Patent Owner may elect to file a revised motion to
`amend even if Patent Owner did not request to receive preliminary guidance
`on its motion to amend. A revised motion to amend must include one or
`more new proposed substitute claims in place of the previously presented
`substitute claims, where each new proposed substitute claim presents a new
`claim amendment. Id.
`If Patent Owner files a revised motion to amend, the Board may
`determine whether to request the Chief Administrative Patent Judge to
`extend the final written decision deadline more than one year from the date a
`trial is instituted in accordance with § 42.100(c) and whether to extend any
`remaining deadlines under § 42.5(c)(2). 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(f)(1). Typically
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`the Board will enter a revised scheduling order setting the briefing schedule
`for that revised motion and adjusting other due dates as needed.
`At DUE DATE 5, Petitioner may file a sur-reply that is limited to
`responding to the preliminary guidance and/or arguments made in the patent
`owner’s reply brief. Id. at § 42.121(e)(3). The sur-reply may not be
`accompanied by new evidence, but may comment on any new evidence filed
`with the reply and/or point to cross-examination testimony of a reply
`witness, if relevant to the arguments made in the reply brief. Id.
`If the Board issues preliminary guidance on the motion to amend, and
`Patent Owner files neither a reply to the opposition to the motion to amend
`nor a revised motion to amend at DUE DATE 3, Petitioner may file a reply
`to the Board’s preliminary guidance, no later than three (3) weeks after DUE
`DATE 3 or at any other DUE DATE that the Board specifies in a revised
`scheduling order. The reply may only respond to the preliminary guidance
`and may not be accompanied by new evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(e)(4).
`Patent Owner may file a sur-reply in response to Petitioner’s reply to the
`Board’s preliminary guidance. Id. The sur-reply may only respond to
`petitioner’s reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence. Id. The
`sur-reply must be filed no later than three (3) weeks after Petitioner’s reply
`or at any other DUE DATE that the Board specifies in a revised scheduling
`order.
`In the event the Board requests examination assistance pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(3)(ii), the parties will be notified of the request and may
`adjust the scheduling order as needed.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`
`Oral Argument
`7.
`Requests for oral argument must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a).
`To permit the Board sufficient time to schedule the oral argument, the
`parties may not stipulate to an extension of the request for oral argument
`beyond the date set forth in the Due Date Appendix.
`The parties may request that the oral argument be held at the Detroit,
`Michigan, USPTO Regional Office. The parties may also request that the
`oral argument instead be held virtually by videoconference. For the parties’
`information in making this decision, two judges will appear remotely by
`video, and one judge will appear in-person from the Detroit, Michigan,
`USPTO Regional Office. The parties should state in the request for oral
`argument, DUE DATE 4, whether the parties would prefer either a video
`hearing or an in-person hearing. To the extent the parties disagree, they
`should meet and confer; if the dispute cannot be resolved by meeting and
`conferring, the parties should inform the Board of each party’s individual
`preferences. PTAB will only conduct an in-person hearing when requested
`by all parties.
`Note that the Board may not be able to honor the parties’ preferences
`due to, among other things, the availability of hearing room resources, the
`needs of the panel, and USPTO policy at the time of the hearing. The Board
`will consider the parties’ request and notify the parties of how and where the
`hearing will be conducted.
`For in-person hearings, seating in the Board’s hearing rooms may be
`limited, and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. If either
`party anticipates that more than five (5) individuals will attend the argument
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`on its behalf, the party should notify the Board as soon as possible, and no
`later than the request for oral argument. Parties should note that the earlier a
`request for accommodation is made, the more likely the Board will be able
`to accommodate additional individuals.
`The Board has established the “Legal Experience and Advancement
`Program,” or “LEAP,” to encourage advocates before the Board to develop
`their skills and to aid in succession planning for the next generation. The
`Board defines a LEAP practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having
`three (3) or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal,
`including PTAB. Parties are encouraged to participate in the Board’s LEAP
`program.4 The Board will grant up to fifteen (15) minutes of additional
`argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and
`the PTAB’s hearing schedule. A party should submit a request, no later than
`at least five (5) business days before the oral hearing, by email to the Board
`at PTABHearings@uspto.gov.5
`All practitioners appearing before the Board shall demonstrate the
`highest professional standards. All practitioners are expected to have a
`command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as
`well as the authority to commit the party they represent. The Board discerns
`that it is often LEAP practitioners who have the best understanding of the
`
`
`4 Information about the LEAP program can be found at www.uspto.gov/leap.
`5 Additionally, a LEAP Verification Form shall be submitted by the LEAP
`practitioner, confirming eligibility for the program. A combined LEAP
`Practitioner Request for Oral Hearing Participation and Verification Form is
`available at www.uspto.gov/leap.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`facts of the case and the evidence of record, and the Board encourages their
`participation.
`
`B. DUE DATES
`This Order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate 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,
`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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`
`DUE DATE 1
`
`1.
`Patent Owner may file—
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120). If Patent Owner
`elects not to file a response, Patent Owner must arrange a conference call
`with the parties and the Board. Patent Owner is cautioned that any
`arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121) after conferring
`with the Board under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`DUE DATE 2
`2.
`Petitioner may file a reply to the Patent Owner’s response.
`Petitioner may file an opposition to the motion to amend.
`DUE DATE 3
`3.
`Patent Owner may file a sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply.
`Patent Owner may also file either:
`a. a reply to the opposition to the motion to amend and/or preliminary
`guidance (if provided); or
`b. a revised motion to amend.
`NOTE: If Patent Owner files neither of the above papers (a reply to
`the opposition or a revised motion to amend), and the Board has issued
`preliminary guidance, Petitioner may file a reply to the preliminary
`guidance, no later than three (3) weeks after DUE DATE 3. Patent Owner
`may file a sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply to the preliminary guidance no later
`than three (3) weeks after Petitioner’s reply.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`
`DUE DATE 4
`4.
`Either party may file a request for oral argument (may not be extended
`by stipulation).
`
`DUE DATE 5
`5.
`Petitioner may file a sur-reply to Patent Owner’s reply to the
`opposition to the motion to amend.
`Either party may file a motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(c)).
`
`DUE DATE 6
`6.
`Either party may file an opposition to a motion to exclude evidence.
`Either party may request that the Board hold a pre-hearing conference.
`DUE DATE 7
`7.
`Either party may file a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence.
`
`DUE DATE 8
`8.
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) shall be held on this
`date. Approximately one month prior to the argument, the Board will issue
`an order setting the start time of the hearing and the procedures that will
`govern the parties’ arguments.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ........................................................... February 10, 2025
`Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`DUE DATE 2 ................................................................... May 5, 2025
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`DUE DATE 3 ................................................................. June 16, 2025
`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)6
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................... July 7, 2025
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................. July 28, 2025
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to reply to opposition to motion to amend
`Motion to exclude evidence
`DUE DATE 6 ............................................................... August 4, 2025
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for prehearing conference
`DUE DATE 7 .............................................................. August 11, 2025
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`6 If Patent Owner files neither a reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the MTA
`nor a revised MTA, the parties are directed to Section B(3) above.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`DUE DATE 8 .............................................................. August 18, 2025
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00782 (Patent 8,646,042 B1)
`IPR2024-00783 (Patent 9,679,289 B1)
`IPR2024-00784 (Patent 10,973,960 B1)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Erika Arner
`Kara Specht
`Cory Bell
`Shawn Chang
`Safiya Aguilar
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`kara.specht@finnegan.com
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`shawn.chang@finnegan.com
`safiya.aguilar@finnegan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`David Hecht
`James Zak
`HECHT PARTNERS LLP
`dhecht@hechtpartners.com
`zakx0017@umn.edu
`
`
`
`14
`
`
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
