`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 19
`Filed: August 21, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2014-00083 (Patent 6,557,054 B2)1
`Case CBM2014-00084 (Patent 6,658,464 B2)
`_______________
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, MICHAEL W. KIM,
`and JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This summary addresses issues that are identical in the two cases.
`Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each
`case. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this format when filing
`papers.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00083 (Patent 6,557,054 B2)
`CBM2014-00084 (Patent 6,658,464 B2)
`
`
`Introduction
`
`On August 20, 2014, a conference call was held. The participants
`
`were respective counsel for the parties and Judges Kim, Kokoski, and
`
`Kauffman. Petitioner initiated the call to discuss a request for rehearing in
`
`each of the respective cases. Petitioner utilized a court reporter for the call
`
`
`
`Discussion
`
`The panel advised the parties that the Board’s guidance would be
`
`limited to procedural matters and would not address the substance of a
`
`request for rehearing. With regard to the Institution Decision of case
`
`CBM2014-00083 (Paper 17), Petitioner asked if the Decision’s citation to a
`
`portion of the Petition was an indication that other portions of the Petition
`
`had not been considered. Patent Owner asserted that this question was
`
`inappropriate because it relates to the substance of the rehearing request.
`
`The panel directed Petitioner to the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) that
`
`the request for rehearing, “specifically identify all matters the party believes
`
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter
`
`was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Patent
`
`Owner indicated that they may seek to file an opposition to Petitioner’s
`
`pending request for rehearing, but did not seek specific authorization at this
`
`time.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00083 (Patent 6,557,054 B2)
`CBM2014-00084 (Patent 6,658,464 B2)
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a copy of the transcript of the
`
`telephone conference call, as an Exhibit, within thirty (30) days of the date
`
`of this order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00083 (Patent 6,557,054 B2)
`CBM2014-00084 (Patent 6,658,464 B2)
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`John Alemanni
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLC
`JAlemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. King
`Brenton R. Babcock
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR
`2jrk@knobbe.com
`2brb@knobbe.com
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`RENAISSANCE IP LAW GROUP LLP
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`