throbber
From: Hawthorne, Eric w. sEric.Hawthorne@U5PTD.GDv>
`
`Sent: Mondav, April 13, 2020 10:45 AM
`To: eshuster@tafi|aw.com; hielenlt@vahoo.com
`Cc: rwhite@taf‘tlaw.com; dmcphailrfiltai‘tlawcom
`Subject: PGRZDlS-DUDES
`
`Counsel,
`
`Oral argument is scheduled for l'v'la',r 141, 2020, but will be held on that date only:r if the
`
`parties request it. According to the Revised Scheduling Order (Paper 33], a request for
`
`oral argument was due April 2, 21321] {DUE DATE 4]. However, we have not received a
`
`request from either partv. Please confirm that oral argument is not being requested
`in this case.
`
`Thank vou,
`Eric W. Hawthorne
`
`Supervisory.r Paralegal Specialist
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`1
`
`PGR2019-00025
`
`PGR2019-00025
`Ex. 3004
`
`EX. 3004
`
`

`

`From: Shuster, Elizabeth A. <EShuster@tattlaw.oom>
`Sent: l‘i."lcin[:la1_.rJI April 13,, 2020 11:03 AM
`To: Hawthorne, Eric W. {Eric.Hawthorne@USPTD.GG :
`bielenltflyahoocom
`Cc: white, Ryan 0. <Rwhite@taftlaw.com>; Trademark Docket - Indiana polis
`<tmTaftdo-cketflafflawmom}: Donald R. McPhail (DMcPhailfldickinson—
`wrightmm‘»; Powell,'liana L <TPcrwell@taftlaw.com:-3
`Subject: RE: PGRZGJB-flm25
`
`Dear Mr. Hawthorne.
`
`We confirm that Petitioner is not requesting oral argument in this case.
`
`Best regards,
`Elizabeth A. Shuster, Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Taft I
`
`Elaifiarillgeth A. Shuster
`Registered Patent Attomey, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`EShuster@tattlaw.com
`Dir: 31T.T13.355E|
`
`| Fax: 31T.T15.4548
`Tel: 31T.T13.3500
`One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
`Indianapolis. Indiana 462044023
`
`I
`
`Taft Bio
`Download vCard
`tafflawcom
`
`To opt in to Taft's daily updates on CDVlD—‘I 9, please subscribe
`here. For news and advice on coronavirus—related implications,
`please review our Resource Toolkit anytime.
`
`This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
`attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
`recipient. use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
`the message and any attachments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`From: Theodore Bielen {bielenthEahooLom}
`
`Sent: Monday, April 13, 213213 6:28 PM
`
`To: Hawthorne, Eric W. =:Eric.HawthorneQUSPTGEDVe
`
`Cc: Elizabeth A. Shuster eeshusterfiafilaweom:
`
`Subject: Re: PGREDlS—DDUES
`
`Dear Mr. Hawthorne
`
`Patent owner understood that the request for an oral argument
`under the CARES Act was extended to 2 May 202D. Patent
`owner will request an oral argument if it is safe to travel to
`Washington DC at the appointed time.
`
`Is the 14 Ma},r EBED oral argument date a firm dfte'?
`
`Theodore J. Eiielen, .Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`From: Hawthorne, Eric W. <Eric.Hawthorne@USPTO.GOU>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:22 PM
`To: bielenlt@vahoo.com; eshuster@taftlaw.com
`Cc: rwhite@taft|aw.com; dmcphai|@taftlaw.com
`Subject: PGRZDlS-DUDES
`
`Counsel,
`
`Petitioner has confirmed that oral argument is not being requested.
`
`Patent Owner has responded as follows:
`
`Patent owner understood that the request for an oral argument under the CARES Act
`was extended to 2 Mag.I 2020. Patent owner will request an oral argument if it is safe
`to travel to Washington DC at the appointed time. Is the 14 May 2020 oral argument
`date a firm date?
`
`Regarding Patent Owner's statement that it "understood that the request for an oral
`argument under the CARES Act was extended to 2 May 2020", two points.
`
`The CARES Act provides no automatic extension of due dates and, thus, does not
`extend DUE DATE 4, the request for an oral argument, to May 2, 2020. Rather, it
`provides additional relief before the PTAB under certain circumstances. See
`
`https:flwww.uspto.govfabout-usfnews-updatesfuspto-announces-extension-certain-
`
`patent-and-trademark-related-timing and embedded links for more information.
`
`If Patent Owner means to seekfuthorization to file a request for an extension of time
`to file the request for oral argument, then Patent Owner should first confer with
`Petitioner and then request a conference call with the PTAB. Please note that, per the
`Revised Scheduling Order [Paper 33}, DUE DATE 4 "may not be extended by
`stipulation" lid. at 6}.
`
`Regarding Patent Owner's statement that "Patent owner will request an oral argument if it is
`safe to travel to Washington DC at the appointed time," please note that oral hearings are
`currently,I being conducted by video, not in person. See htt
`s: www.us to. our
`atents-
`
`application—processfipatent—trial—an d—appeaI—boardfhea rings .
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Regarding Patent Owner‘s question I‘ls the 14 May 2020 oral argument date a firm date?,"
`two points.
`
`The Revised Scheduling Order {Paper 33} indicates that oral argument is scheduled for
`
`May 14, 2020 {DUE DATE 8] and that "[t]he oral argument (if requested by either party] shall
`be held on this date." rd. at 5, emphasis added.
`
`If Patent Owner means to seek authorization to file a request to reschedule oral
`argument, then Patent Own er should first confer with Petitioner and then request a
`conference call with the PTAB.
`
`If after considering this email Patent Owner still wishes to file a request for oral argument,
`then Patent Owner should confer with Petitioner about filing {a} a request to extend the time
`to file said request for oral argument and, if also sought, {b} a request to reschedule oral
`argument, and then request a conference call with the PTAB.
`
`Thank you,
`Eric W. Hawthorne
`
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
`
`
`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