Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`Date Entered: September 8, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00527
`Patent 7,496,674 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and DAVID C. McKONE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`Date Entered: September 8, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00527
`Patent 7,496,674 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and DAVID C. McKONE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00527
`Patent 7,496,674 B2
`
`
`1. Introduction
`On September 5, 2014, an initial conference call was conducted between
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Cocks, Capp, and McKone.
`Petitioner, Ericsson, Inc., was represented by lead counsel Todd Baker and counsel
`Robert Mattson. Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures I LLC., was represented by
`lead counsel Herbert Hart and counsel Jonathan Sick. The purpose of the call was
`to determine if the parties have any issues concerning the Scheduling Order
`(Paper 12), and to discuss any motions contemplated by the parties. Counsel for
`Patent Owner indicated that a court reporter has been provided for the call. When
`the transcript becomes available, Patent Owner should file the transcript in this
`proceeding as an exhibit.
`
`2. Related Matters
`As indicated in the Petition, patent 7,496,674 (“the ’674 patent”) is involved
`in multiple litigation proceedings in the District of Delaware. Paper 1, 4–5. When
`queried by the panel, Patent Owner indicated that it believed that none of the
`litigation has been stayed pending the outcome of this inter partes review
`proceeding.
`No reexaminations or reissue applications of the ’674 patent have been
`identified by the parties.
`
`3. Scheduling Order
`Neither party indicated any issues with the Scheduling Order. The parties
`are reminded that, without obtaining prior authorization from the Board, they may
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00527
`Patent 7,496,674 B2
`
`stipulate to different dates for DATES 1–51 by filing an appropriate notice with the
`Board.
`
`4. Protective Order
`The parties have not discussed a protective order at this time. No protective
`order has been entered. Should circumstances change, the parties are reminded of
`the requirement for a protective order when filing a Motion to Seal. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54. If the parties have agreed to a proposed protective order, including the
`Standing Default Protective Order, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug 14, 2012),
`they should file a signed copy of the proposed protective order with the motion to
`seal. If the parties choose to propose a protective order other than or departing
`from the default Standing Protective Order, they must submit a joint, proposed
`protective order, accompanied by a red-lined version based on the default
`protective order in Appendix B to the Board’s Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.
`See id. at 48,769.
`
`5. Discovery
`The parties are reminded of the discovery provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51–
`52 and Office Trial Practice Guide. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761–62. Discovery
`requests and objections are not to be filed with the Board without prior
`authorization. The parties may request a conference with the Board if the parties
`are unable to resolve discovery issues between them. A motion to exclude, which
`does not require Board authorization, must be filed to preserve any objection.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 37.64, Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767. There
`are no discovery issues pending at this time.
`
`
`1 The parties may not stipulate to changes for any other DUE DATE.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00527
`Patent 7,496,674 B2
`
`
`Each party may depose experts and affiants supporting the opposing party.
`The parties are reminded of the provisions for taking testimony found at 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53 and the Office Trial Practice Manual at 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,772, App. D.
`
`6. Motions
`The parties are reminded that, except as otherwise provided in the Rules,
`Board authorization is required before filing a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). A
`party seeking to file a motion should request a conference to obtain authorization
`to file the motion. No motions are authorized in this proceeding at this time.
`
`7. Motion to Amend
`Although Patent Owner may file one motion to amend the patent by
`
`cancelling or substituting claims without Board authorization, Patent Owner must
`confer with the Board before filing a motion to amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42. 121(a).
`During the call, Patent Owner indicated that it may file a contingent motion to
`amend, but was not yet prepared to discuss such a motion with the panel. Should
`Patent Owner intend to file such a motion, it should arrange a conference call with
`the panel and opposing counsel in order to satisfy the conferral requirement of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`
`8. Settlement
`The parties stated that there is no immediate prospect of settlement that will
`affect the conduct of this proceeding.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00527
`Patent 7,496,674 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`W. Todd Baker
`Robert Mattson
`OBLON SPIVAK
`cpdocketbaker@oblon.com
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Herbert D. Hart III
`Jonathan R. Sick
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`jsick@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
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
