`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: August 12, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION and
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00303
`Patent RE40,927 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, GLENN J. PERRY, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`Patent RE40,927 E
`
`
`An initial conference call was held on August 11, 2014, and attended
`by the above-identified panel members and respective counsel for the
`parties. We have received a list of proposed motions from Patent Owner
`(Paper 13) and from Petitioner (Paper 14). Neither of these papers lists any
`proposed motions to discuss at the initial conference call. The following
`matters were discussed.
`
`Scheduling Order
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicated that they are generally
`comfortable with the dates set forth in the Scheduling Order (Paper 11).
`Patent Owner’s Counsel expressed some concern about the timing of a
`deposition of Petitioner’s expert. Counsel may agree, without consulting
`with us, to alter any of Due Dates 1-5 of the Scheduling Order, so long as
`the alteration does not intrude on Due Dates 6 and 7. A copy of any
`stipulated date change must be filed with the Board. Beyond changing Due
`Dates 1-5, a conference with us is required for consideration of any date
`change.
`
`Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ITC Investigation identified in Papers 1
`and 7 has been dismissed based on a failure to establish a domestic industry.
`Petitioner noted that the dismissal is still subject to Commission review and,
`therefore, is not yet final. The parties indicate that related matters in the
`District of Delaware remain pending, but presently are stayed pending the
`outcome of the ITC Investigation. The parties are reminded of their
`obligation to update their mandatory notices within twenty-one (21) days of
`any change in the information provided. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). The parties
`indicate that they will update us when the status of any of the related matters
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`Patent RE40,927 E
`
`changes.
`
`Discovery
`The parties indicate that, at this time, they do not anticipate the need
`for any discovery motions.
`
`Protective Order (Rule 42.54)
`
`The parties indicate that at this time they do not require a protective
`order. Patent Owner’s Counsel indicates that should one be necessary, the
`Board’s default protective order would be sufficient. A protective order is
`not automatically in place in AIA proceedings. The parties are advised that
`in the event a protective order is needed, they should first attempt to agree
`on the language of a protective order. There is a default protective order set
`forth in an appendix to our Trial Practice Guide. It is intended as a model
`which can be adopted as is, or altered as appropriate to the circumstances.
`After working out language for the protective order, counsel should initiate a
`conference call with us in order to obtain authorization for filing a motion to
`have the agreed-upon protective order made effective.
`
`Settlement
`The parties indicate that at present, there are no settlement discussions
`in progress specific to this matter.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00303
`Patent RE40,927 E
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized other than those already
`authorized by rule or in the Scheduling Order; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial schedule remains as set in the
`Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`
`Christopher D. Bright
`Amol A. Parikh
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`cbright@mwe.com
`amparikh@mwe.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Thomas Engellenner
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`engellerrert@pepperlaw.com
`mollaaghababar@pepperlaw.com
`
`Theodosios Thomas
`OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC
`ted.thomas@sceneralabs.com
`
`4
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
