`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 10, 2014
`
`571–272–7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FLIR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CANVS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00773
`Patent 6,911,652 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE SUMMARY
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00773
`Patent 6,911,652 B2
`
`
`On November 6, 2014, Judges Kamholz, Daniels, and Weinschenk
`held an initial conference with counsel for the parties. The following
`subjects were discussed during the conference.
`Scheduling Order
`Neither party raised an objection to any date in the Scheduling Order.
`We remind the parties that, if the parties agree to change any of Due Dates 1
`through 5 in the Scheduling Order, the stipulated dates cannot be later than
`Due Date 6, and the parties promptly must file a joint stipulation indicating
`such change.
`Motions
`Neither party currently anticipated filing any motions not already
`authorized by our Rules or the Scheduling Order. We remind the Patent
`Owner that, if it decides to file a motion to amend, Patent Owner must
`schedule a call to confer with us prior to filing the motion. We instruct
`Patent Owner to schedule any such conference call at least two weeks prior
`to the due date, Due Date 1, for filing a motion to amend.
`We also remind the parties that any motions that are not already
`authorized by our Rules or the Scheduling Order require authorization from
`us before filing. In that regard, we instruct the parties that (1) prior to
`requesting a conference with us to seek authorization for a motion, the
`parties should consult with each other and attempt to resolve any issues
`between them, and (2) if a conference with us is necessary, the parties
`should suggest several dates and times for the desired conference.
`Protective Order
`Neither party believed that a protective order would be necessary, and
`a protective order has not been entered in this proceeding. We remind the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00773
`Patent 6,911,652 B2
`
`parties that, if the parties later find the need for a protective order in this
`proceeding, the parties may agree to the default protective order in Appendix
`B of the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,771 (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties wish to
`deviate from the default protective order, the parties must submit a redlined
`version of the default protective order that shows any such deviations and
`explain to us why such deviations are necessary.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00773
`Patent 6,911,652 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Thomas B. King
`Greg J. Michelson
`Kevin S. White
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`ipr.thomas.king@haynesboone.com
`Greg.Michelson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`kevin.white@haynesboone.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph J. Zito
`DNL ZITO
`jzito@dnlzito.com
`
`Paul Grandinetti
`LEVY GRANDINETTI
`mail@levygrandinetti.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
