`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: February 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, PETER P. CHEN, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. §42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`Introduction
`
`On February 25, 2015, the initial conference call was held among
`
`counsel for the respective parties and Judges Busch, Chen, and Lee. The
`
`purpose of the conference call was to discuss any proposed changes to the
`
`Scheduling Order and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the
`
`trial. We provide the following summary of the conference call.
`
`Schedule
`
`Neither party expressed any issue with the Scheduling Order (Paper
`
`12). The parties are reminded that, without obtaining prior authorization
`
`from us, they may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1–5 by filing
`
`an appropriate notice. The parties may not stipulate to any other changes to
`
`the Scheduling Order without specific authorization from us.
`
`Motions
`
`Prior to the conference call, Patent Owner filed a List of Proposed
`
`Motions (Paper 14). Patent Owner indicated it may wish to file a motion to
`
`amend under 37 C.F.R. § 42121(a). As we discussed, if Patent Owner
`
`determines that it will file a motion to amend, Patent Owner must arrange
`
`for a conference call with us to discuss the motion, preferably no later than
`
`two weeks prior to filing the motion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Additional
`
`guidance on motions to amend claims is provided in the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide (see 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012))
`
`and in relevant Board decisions, including Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp.,
`
`Case IPR2012-00005 (PTAB June 3, 2013) (Paper 27); Idle Free Systems,
`
`Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper
`
`26) (informative); and Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences
`
`LLC, Case IPR2013-00419 (PTAB March 7, 2014) (Paper 32).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`The parties are reminded that Board authorization is required before
`
`filing a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). A party seeking to file a motion not
`
`authorized previously should request a conference call with us to obtain
`
`authorization to file the motion.
`
`Other Matters
`
`As of this date, no protective order has been entered. 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 choose to propose a protective order
`
`other than or departing from the default Standing Protective Order, Office
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012), 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, and they must explain why each
`
`proposed change to the default Standing Protective Order is necessary. See
`
`id. at 48769–71.
`
`Finally, the parties indicated that they are unaware of any settlement
`
`discussions to date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Andrew Lowes
`
`andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`David M. O’Dell
`
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lori Gordon
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Michael Specht
`mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Ryan Richardson
`rrichardson-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`James Hietala
`jhietala@intven.com
`
`Tim Seeley
`tim@intven.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
