Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: September 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GRÜNENTHAL GMBH
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ANTECIP BIOVENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`35 U.S.C. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: September 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GRÜNENTHAL GMBH
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ANTECIP BIOVENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`35 U.S.C. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`1. Initial Conference Call
`Following an email request by Petitioner, the Board held an initial
`conference call with counsel for both parties on September 25, 2019.
`During the call, Petitioner requested that the schedule in this case be
`changed to align with the schedule set in the related cases currently pending
`as PGR2019-00026 and PGR2019-00027. Patent Owner stated during the
`call that it did not oppose the request to align the schedules in the three cases
`by moving each of the due dates in this case earlier in order to make each
`date the same as the corresponding due date in the two related cases.
`Accordingly, we enter this Revised Scheduling Order setting new due dates
`for filings in PGR2019-00028. This Order supersedes the original
`Scheduling Order, Paper 7, which we entered on August 20, 2019.
`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 must be filed as an exhibit to the
`motion. The parties may adopt the Board’s default protective order if they
`conclude that a protective order is necessary. See Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, July 2019 Update, App’x B (July 16, 2019) (“July 2019 TPG
`Update”).1 If the parties choose to propose a protective order that deviates
`from the default protective order, they must submit the proposed protective
`order jointly along with a marked-up comparison of the proposed and default
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-
`practice-guide-update3.pdf
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`protective orders showing the differences between the two and, further, must
`explain why good cause exists to deviate from the default protective order.
`See id.
`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 Practice
`Guide 48,761.
`3. Discovery and Other Disputes
`The Board encourages parties to resolve disputes on their own. If a
`dispute arises, 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.
`In any request for a conference call with the Board to resolve a
`dispute, the requesting party shall: (a) certify that it has conferred with the
`other party in an effort to resolve the dispute; (b) identify the precise relief to
`be sought; and (c) propose specific dates and times at which both parties are
`available for the conference call. Such a request is not an opportunity to
`brief the merits of the dispute and must not include attorney argument.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`
`
`
`4. Testimony
`The Testimony Guidelines appended to the Trial Practice Guide,
`Appendix D, 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. 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.
`Whenever a party submits a deposition transcript as an exhibit in this
`proceeding, the submitting party shall file the full transcript of the deposition
`rather than excerpts of only those portions being cited. After a deposition
`transcript has been submitted as an exhibit, all parties who subsequently cite
`to portions of the transcript shall cite to the first-filed exhibit rather than
`submitting another copy of the same transcript.
`5. Cross-Examination
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1.
`Cross-examination ordinarily takes place after any
`supplemental evidence is due. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`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). Patent Owner should
`arrange for a conference call with the panel and opposing counsel at least
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`two weeks before DUE DATE 1 in order to satisfy the conferral
`requirement. See Section B below regarding DUE DATES.
`Patent Owner has the option to receive preliminary guidance from the
`Board on its motion to amend. See Notice Regarding a New Pilot Program
`Concerning Motion to Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings
`under the America Invents Act before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 84
`Fed. Reg. 9497 (Mar. 15, 2019) (“MTA Pilot Program Notice”). 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.
`Any motion to amend and briefing related to such a motion shall
`generally follow the practices and procedures described in the MTA Pilot
`Program Notice unless otherwise ordered by the Board in this proceeding.
`The parties are further directed to the Board’s Guidance on Motions to
`Amend in view of Aqua Products (https://go.usa.gov/xU6YV), and
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., Case IPR2018-01129 (Paper 15) (PTAB
`Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential).
`As indicated in the MTA Pilot Program Notice, Patent Owner has the
`option at DUE DATE 3 to file a revised motion to amend (instead of a reply,
`as noted above) after receiving petitioner’s opposition to the original motion
`to amend and/or after receiving the Board’s preliminary guidance (if
`requested). A revised motion to amend must provide amendments,
`arguments, and/or evidence in a manner that is responsive to issues raised in
`the preliminary guidance and/or petitioner’s opposition.
`If Patent Owner files a revised motion to amend, the Board shall enter
`a revised scheduling order setting the briefing schedule for that revised
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`motion and adjusting other due dates as needed. See MTA Pilot Program
`Notice, App’x B 1B.
`As also discussed in the MTA Pilot Program Notice, if the Board
`issues preliminary board guidance on the motion to amend and the Patent
`Owner does not file either a reply to the opposition to the motion to amend
`or 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. The reply may only respond to the preliminary guidance. Patent
`Owner may file a sur-reply in response to Petitioner’s reply to the Board’s
`preliminary guidance. The sur-reply may only respond to arguments made
`in the reply and must be filed no later than three (3) weeks after the
`Petitioner’s reply. No new evidence may accompany the reply or the sur-
`reply in this situation.
`7.
`Oral Argument
`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.
`Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if
`requested, will be held at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria. 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
`individuals will attend the argument on its behalf, the party should notify the
`Board as soon as possible, and no later than the request for oral argument.
`The earlier a request for accommodation is made, the more likely the Board
`will be able to accommodate additional individuals.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`B. DUE DATES
`This Order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate to different dates for DUE
`DATES 1 through 3, 5, and 6 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE
`DATE 7). 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.
`1. DUE DATE 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 for patentability not raised in the response may be deemed
`waived.
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`2. DUE DATE 2
`Petitioner may file a reply to the Patent Owner’s response.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner may file an opposition to the motion to amend.
`3. DUE DATE 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 preliminary
`board guidance (if provided); or
`b. a revised motion to amend.
`4. DUE DATE 4
`Either party may file a request for oral argument (may not be extended
`by stipulation).
`5. DUE DATE 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)).
`6. DUE DATE 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.
`7. DUE DATE 7
`Either party may file a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence.
`8. DUE DATE 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.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ....................................................................... October 21, 2019
`Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................ January 13, 2020
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ...................................................................... February 24, 2020
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply to the response to the
`petition
`Patent Owner’s reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to
`amend OR Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend
`
`
`DUE DATE 4 .......................................................................... March 13, 2020
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`
`DUE DATE 5 .............................................................................. April 3, 2020
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to the opposition to the motion to amend
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................ April 10, 2020
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for pre-hearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 ............................................................................ April 17, 2020
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 8 ............................................................................ April 24, 2020
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`Patent 10,052,338 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Daniel J. Minion
`Bruce C. Haas
`Katherine E. Adams
`VENABLE LLP
`dminion@venable.com
`bchaas@venable.com
`keadams@venable.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Brent A. Johnson
`R. Parrish Freeman
`MASCHOFF BRENNAN
`bjohnson@mabr.com
`pfreeman@mabr.com
`
`
`
`10
`
`
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
