Paper 19
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: February 22, 2017
`
`571–272–7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`Case IPR2016-01389
`Patent 8,155,012 B2
`Case IPR2016-01391
`Patent 8,942,107 B2
`Case IPR2016-01397
`Patent 9,019,838 B2
`Case IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`UPDATED SCHEDULING ORDER,
`WITHDRAWAL and ENTRY OF LEAD COUNSEL1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`employ this heading style.
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: February 22, 2017
`
`571–272–7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`Case IPR2016-01389
`Patent 8,155,012 B2
`Case IPR2016-01391
`Patent 8,942,107 B2
`Case IPR2016-01397
`Patent 9,019,838 B2
`Case IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`UPDATED SCHEDULING ORDER,
`WITHDRAWAL and ENTRY OF LEAD COUNSEL1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`employ this heading style.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Patent 8,155,012 B2
`IPR2016-01391 Patent 8,942,107 B2
`IPR2016-01397 Patent 9,019,838 B2
`IPR2016-01399 Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner requested a conference call, held with the panel on
`February 21, 2017, to discuss replacing its lead counsel and proposed
`schedule changes to the four listed trials. A court reporter transcribed the
`call, and the parties will cause the transcription to be entered into the record
`in each case. On the same day as the conference call, Patent Owner filed a
`Motion to Authorize Withdrawal of Counsel in each case. See, e.g.,
`IPR2016-01389, Paper 20 (“Motion”). The Motion requests authorization to
`withdraw Patent Owner’s lead counsel Justin Cohen. See id. Pursuant to
`email instructions by the Board on February 16, 2017, Patent Owner filed a
`new power of attorney and an updated mandatory notice, which identifies
`Frank A. Angileri as Patent Owner’s new lead counsel. See, e.g., IPR2016-
`01389, Papers 18 and 19.
`Petitioner noted objections in email communications to the Board to
`Patent Owner’s request to change lead counsel and Patent Owner’s proposed
`schedule changes. Petitioner noted that it would not oppose a change in lead
`counsel if the schedules would remain unchanged in each case. During the
`call, Patent Owner argued that its current lead counsel had a conflict and its
`new lead counsel required time to become more familiar with the cases.
`After hearing from the parties further, the panel discerned little or no
`prejudice to Petitioner in allowing Patent Owner to enter new lead counsel,
`and informed the parties that Patent Owner’s request to replace its lead
`counsel would be granted.
`During the call, and by email, the parties agreed to change Due Date 7
`(the hearing date, if requested) for all four cases, in order to consolidate the
`hearings. The panel notes that the trials involve common subject matter.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Patent 8,155,012 B2
`IPR2016-01391 Patent 8,942,107 B2
`IPR2016-01397 Patent 9,019,838 B2
`IPR2016-01399 Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`The panel also set Due Date 1 for April 4, 2017, after Petitioner informed
`the Board that Petitioner had offered to change Due Date 1 to March 30,
`2017, as a counter to Patent Owner’s requested date of April 7, 2017.
`Petitioner argued prejudice to its client in moving the dates as proposed by
`Patent Owner for each case, arguing, among other things, that Patent
`Owner’s proposed schedule would allow Patent Owner more time to prepare
`its Patent Owner Response in each case, and that compressing the hearing
`date also would prejudice Petitioner’s time for preparation.
`After hearing from both parties further during the call, the panel noted
`that moving Due Date 7 to August 31, 2017 would allow both parties more
`time to prepare for three of the cases, and it would compress the schedule for
`only one case (in comparison to the current schedules). The parties then
`agreed to move Due Date 2 (Petitioner’s Reply) to June 30, 2017. Similar to
`resetting Due Date 7, this new date for Due Date 2 allows Petitioner more
`time to prepare its Reply for three of the cases (in comparison to the current
`schedules). The parties then agreed to file a revised Scheduling Order listing
`the remaining agreed upon dates as discussed during the conference (see
`transcription thereof for more details).
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to replace its lead counsel in
`each proceeding is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Date 7 is set for August 31, 2017 (at
`1 PM ET) in each case;
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Patent 8,155,012 B2
`IPR2016-01391 Patent 8,942,107 B2
`IPR2016-01397 Patent 9,019,838 B2
`IPR2016-01399 Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Date 1 is set for April 4, 2017 in
`each case; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties enter a revised schedule
`stipulating to the newly proposed schedule in each case as set forth during
`the conference.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Nima Hefazi
`Michael Fleming
`Jonathan Kagan
`Talin Gordnia
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`nhefazi@irell.com
`mfleming@irell.com
`jkagan@irell.com
`tgordnia@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`Thomas A. Lewry
`Marc Lorelli
`Christopher C. Smith
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`CHRMC0108IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann
`REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
`hoffmann@reising.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
