`Paper 142
` Entered: April 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`572-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`ILLUMINA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF
`NEW YORK
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00007
`U.S. Patent 7,790,869
`___________
`
`Before Lane, Lebovitz, and Katz Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Lane, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties jointly contacted the Board seeking clarification of the Board’s
`Order of April 14, 2014 (Paper 141). (See attached e-mail communication, dated
`
`

`

`April 15, 2014.) Specifically, the parties asked for confirmation that if the
`confidential exhibits are expunged, they will still remain available for inclusion in
`an appeal Appendix and will still be available to the Board if the case should be
`remanded.
`The parties should include any requested relief regarding the requested
`expunging of documents in the motion authorized on April 14, 2014, for
`consideration in due course.
`In the communication of April 15, 2014, Columbia also requested
`clarification as to how the Barker transcript would be made available to the Federal
`Circuit during an appeal. As previously stated, the issue has been finally decided
`and there is no basis for further rehearing of that Decision. To the extent it would
`be appropriate for Columbia to request rehearing of that portion of the Decision
`impacted by the Barker transcript, the time for such a request has passed. 37 CFR
`§ 42.71(d)(1) (request for rehearing of a non-final decision is 14 days after its
`entry).
`It is ORDERED that there is no modification of the Order dated
`April 14, 2014 (Paper 141).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner:
`Robert Lawler
`James Morrow
`Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
`illuminaiprs@reinhartlaw.com
`
`Patent Owner:
`John P. White
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`jwhite@cooperdunham.com
`
`and
`Anthony M. Zupcic
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`ColumbiaIPR@fchs.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`From: John P White [mailto:JWHITE@COOPERDUNHAM.COM]
`Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:44 PM
`To: Trials
`Cc: Robert A. Lawler (RLawler@reinhartlaw.com); 'Costakos, Jeffrey N. (JCostakos@foley.com)'
`(JCostakos@foley.com); Zupcic,Anthony (AZupcic@fchs.com); James G. Morrow
`(JMorrow@reinhartlaw.com); Curry, Donald (DCurry@fchs.com); Schwartz,Robert; O'Malley, Brendan
`Subject: IPR2012-00006, IPR2012-00007, IPR2013-00011
` 
` 
`This email concerns the Board’s Order issued on April 14, 2014 in the above‐captioned IPRs.  See, e.g., 
`IPR2012‐00006, Paper 129.  The Parties respectfully seek clarification of the Board’s Order. 
`
`  
`First, regarding the issue of maintaining the availability of confidential information pending resolution of 
`an appeal, the Board’s Order states that the Parties may now file a Motion to Expunge.  The confidential 
`information in question could be important to an appeal to the Federal Circuit, and the Parties would 
`appreciate confirmation that if the confidential exhibits are expunged, they will still remain available for 
`inclusion in an appeal Appendix and will still be available to the Board if the case should be remanded. 
`
`  
`Second, Columbia sought clarification as to how the Barker transcript would be made available to the 
`Federal Circuit during an appeal.  The Board’s Order only states that a request for rehearing of the 
`Board’s decision denying Columbia’s request to file the Barker transcript as supplemental information is 
`now untimely.  Columbia respectfully notes that it timely sought rehearing of the Board’s decision, and 
`rehearing was denied.  (IPR2012‐00006, Paper 127.)  In its decision, the Board stated that “as it is not 
`necessary for Columbia to file the transcript to preserve the issue for appeal, we do not authorize 
`Columbia’s request under these particular circumstances.”  (Paper No. 127 at  4‐5.)   
`
`  
`Given this statement by the Board, Columbia seeks guidance on how to properly include the Barker 
`transcript in the record on appeal.  Again, Columbia respectfully points out that under identical 
`circumstances, Illumina was allowed to file the deposition transcript of Dr. Branchaud on the docket so 
`that it would be available for appeal.   
`   
`Sincerely, 
` 
` 
`John P. White, Esq.
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`20th Floor
`New York, NY 10112
`Tel: 212-278-0421
`Fax: 212-391-0526
`Email: jwhite@cooperdunham.com
` 
`__________________________________________
`This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and/or attorney‐client privileged 
`information.  If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the 
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you 
`received this message in error, please notify us immediately. Thank you.
` 
`
`