`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: June 16, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`OSRAM SYLVANIA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAM STRAIT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00703
`Patent 6,786,625 B2
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, BART A. GERSTENBLITH,
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00703
`Patent 6,786,625 B2
`
`
`On June 15, 2015, Patent Owner requested a call with the Board to
`seek authorization to make oral argument telephonically, instead of in
`person. Counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner participated in the
`conference call.
`Counsel for Patent Owner stated that the client’s financial constraints
`impede counsel’s ability to attend the hearing in person. Counsel for
`Petitioner indicated that it was planning to attend in person and use
`demonstratives. Upon discussing the need to minimize any unfair advantage
`resulting from appearing in person versus telephonically, Patent Owner’s
`counsel indicated that Patent Owner would waive any right to attend in
`person, and would not object to the oral argument proceeding with only
`Petitioner’s counsel appearing in person.
`The parties were ordered to file notices in accordance with the
`discussion had during the conference call: (1) Patent Owner to file a notice
`confirming its waiver of in-person attendance; and (2) Petitioner to state
`whether it would proceed telephonically or in person. Consequently, Patent
`Owner filed a Notice stating that it “waives its presence at the oral hearing
`. . . and plans to attend telephonically.” Paper 19, 1. Patent Owner also
`states that it has “no objection to Petitioner’s counsel appearing in person.”
`Id. Petitioner’s Notice states that Petitioner’s counsel “will attend oral
`argument in-person at the scheduled time and place.” Paper 20, 1.
`Upon consideration of Patent Owner’s financial status, its waiver of
`any right to attend in person, and the assertion that it does not object to
`Petitioner’s attendance in person, we determine that there is good cause to
`maintain the oral hearing as scheduled with a special accommodation to
`Patent Owner’s counsel for telephonic attendance.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00703
`Patent 6,786,625 B2
`
`
`It is hereby,
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Lead Counsel or Backup Counsel
`shall contact the Board at 571-272-9797 to obtain the audio bridge
`information for the oral argument scheduled on June 18, 2015;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other counsel or party is authorized to
`use the audio bridge to attend the oral argument; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, except as noted above, the Order setting
`the oral argument entered on May 22, 2015, remains in effect.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00703
`Patent 6,786,625 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eric R. Moran
`John M. Schafer
`Paul H. Berghoff
`MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`moran@mbhb.com
`Schafer@mbhb.com
`berghoff@mbhb.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Seth Nehrbass
`Mackenzie Rodriguez
`GARVEY, SMITH, NEHRBASS & NORTH, L.L.C.
`SethNehrbass@gsnn.us
`mrodriguez@gsnn.us
`
`Kenneth L. Tolar
`tolar@cavtel.net
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
