`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 16
`Date: June 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al.
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I & II LLC
`Patent Owner1
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
` Case CBM2014-00029
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00031
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, HYUN J. JUNG, and GREGG I.
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This caption is not authorized for use by the parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
`Case CBM2014-00029
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00031
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`
`On June 23, 2014, an initial conference call was held in these cases. Present
`
`on the call were respective counsel for the parties and Administrative Patent
`
`Judges Thomas Giannetti, Hyun Jung, and Gregg Anderson. The following
`
`matters were discussed:
`
`1. Schedule
`
`No proposed changes were requested.
`
`2. Protective Order
`
`No protective order was entered. The parties will contact the Board to
`
`request entry of the default protective order if necessary.
`
`3. Additional Discovery
`
`No requests for additional discovery are expected.
`
`4. Motions to Amend
`
`Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion cancelling the claims
`
`on which a covered business method patent review was instituted in proceeding
`
`CBM2014-00031. Petitioners do not oppose. The request was granted. Patent
`
`Owner will file its motion promptly.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner plans to file a contingent motion to amend in CBM2014-
`
`00033 (and possibly other proceedings) and will request a conference with the
`
`Board before filing such motions.
`
`6. Motions to Exclude
`
`The parties are referred to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 regarding procedures for
`
`objecting to evidence and motions to exclude. The Board will require the moving
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
`Case CBM2014-00029
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00031
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`party to show that the procedures have been followed in considering any motion to
`
`exclude evidence.
`
`7. Settlement
`
`The parties had nothing to report.
`
`8. Other Matters
`
`Petitioners request that depositions of experts be limited to a half day per
`
`expert per patent. According to Petitioners, the issues do not warrant the full seven
`
`hours provided by our rules for expert depositions. Patent Owner opposes.
`
`After due consideration by the panel, Petitioners’ request is denied. While
`
`the issues are limited, the expert declarations are quite detailed. Nevertheless, the
`
`parties are expected to cooperate in conducting expert depositions in an efficient
`
`manner. Seven hours for expert depositions should be regarded as a time limit and
`
`not a requirement. Any perceived deposition abuses should be brought to the
`
`immediate attention of the panel.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
`Case CBM2014-00029
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00031
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`PETITONERS:
`
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Monica Grewal
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Herbert D. Hart III
`Jonathan R. Sick
`Eligio C. Pimentel
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`jsick@mcandrews-ip.com
`epimentel@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`Henry A. Petri, Jr.
`James P. Murphy
`NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP
`henry.petri@novakdruce.com
`james.murphy@novakdruce.co
`
`4
`
`