`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 18
`
`
`
` Entered: 25 January 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`On January 23, 2013, a conference call was conducted between the patent
`
`
`
`judge and respective counsel for the parties, to discuss any issues the parties may
`
`have about the Scheduling Order dated January 9, 2013, and any question the
`
`parties may have on trial procedure. All three members of this panel were in
`
`attendance at the conference call.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`Counsel for the Patent Owner was informed that the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`procedure does not generally apply to this proceeding and that any proposed
`
`amendment or substitution of claims must explain how it obviates the grounds of
`
`unpatentability underlying the institution of this inter partes review and where
`
`corresponding written description support in the specification can be found. It was
`
`also indicated to the Patent Owner that such explanation should be contained in the
`
`motion to amend claims which is separate from the Patent Owner’s Response. In
`
`addition, the Patent Owner was informed that the motion to amend claims should
`
`not make any change to claims which are not involved in this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner requested to file a motion for joinder of Chrysler
`
`11
`
`Corporation and JVC Inc. which are allegedly “privies” to the Petitioner. The
`
`12
`
`request was denied because the Patent Owner could not represent that either is
`
`13
`
`currently a petitioner in a pending Inter Partes Review involving Patent 6,778,074.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Counsel for both parties indicated that neither has a problem with meeting
`
`15
`
`the dates set forth in the Scheduling Order dated January 9, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`For PETITIONER
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Hovey Williams, LLP
`jcb@hoveywilliams.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kasha Law LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`Cabrach J. Connor
`Reed & Scardino LLP
`cconnor@reedscardino.com
`
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`