`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: October 13, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ALARM.COM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIVINT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01965 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Change to Rescheduled Due Date 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) and (c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in both cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01965 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)
`
`
`I.
`DISCUSSION
`On March 24, 2016, we instituted inter partes review in IPR2015-01977;
`and, on March 30, 2016, we instituted inter partes review in IPR2015-01965.
`IPR2015-01965, Paper 12; IPR2015-01977, Paper 13. We issued a Scheduling
`Order for each case, and, in the Scheduling Order for IPR2015-01965, we advised
`the parties that, “if no Motion to Amend is filed in this proceeding, Due Date 3 is
`moot, and the panel may advance Due Dates 4–7, sua sponte.” IPR2015-01965,
`Paper 13, 3 n.2. On October 3, 2016, we issued a Second Revised Scheduling
`Order, in which we changed Due Dates 4–7, and, in particular, in which we set
`Due Date 7 for November 30, 2016. IPR2015-01965, Paper 24, 3; IPR2015-
`01977, Paper 30, 3. Further, we advised the parties that, “if oral argument is
`requested, counsel for the parties shall appear and present their arguments in
`Alexandria, Virginia, before Judge Zecher. Judge Arpin (Denver, Colorado) and
`Judge Boudreau (San Jose, California) shall participate in any requested hearing
`remotely.” E.g., IPR2015-01965, Paper 24, 2.
`On October 11, 2016, we held a telephone conference with the parties to
`discuss their joint request that we change Due Date 7 again. During that telephone
`conference, Petitioner informed us that one of its back-up counsel, Mr. Brooks
`(see, e.g., IPR2015-01965, Paper 11 (admitting Mr. Brooks as back-up counsel pro
`hac vice)) would be out of the country on business on November 30, 2016.
`Petitioner informed us that it wished for Mr. Brooks to present its arguments at any
`requested hearing.2 Further, Petitioner informed us that neither its lead counsel nor
`any of its other three back-up counsel has a conflict with the rescheduled Due Date
`
`
`2 We note that, at this time, neither party has requested a hearing in either
`IPR2015-01965 or IPR2015-01977.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01965 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)
`
`7, and Patent Owner informed us that none of its counsel has a conflict with the
`rescheduled Due Date 7.3
`Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate Petitioner’s desire to have Mr.
`Brooks available to present Petitioner’s arguments at any requested hearing, we
`instructed that the parties confer and inform us of the date of Mr. Brooks’ return
`from his business trip abroad and possible alternative dates for Due Date 7. After
`conferring, the parties informed us that Mr. Brooks will return from his business
`trip on December 2, 2016, and proposed that Due Date 7 be rescheduled for
`December 7, 8, or 9, 2016. After investigation, we determined that either at least
`one judge has a conflict with the proposed dates for Due Date 7 or that a hearing
`room is not available in Alexandria on the dates proposed. Therefore, we deny the
`parties’ request to change rescheduled Due Date 7.
`II. ORDER
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties’ request to change rescheduled
`Due Date 7 is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`3 As the parties are aware, “[i]f a party is represented by counsel, the party must
`designate a lead counsel and at least one back-up counsel who can conduct
`business on behalf of the lead counsel.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a); see Office Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48758 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01965 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`William H. Mandir
`Brian K. Shelton
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`
`Roger G. Brooks
`Marc J. Khadpe
`Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`rgbrooks@cravath.com
`mkhadpe@cravath.com
`tsankoorikal@cravath.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Michael V. Messinger
`Christian A. Camarce
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`rsterne@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`mikem-PTAB@skgf.com
`ccamarce-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
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
