throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: April 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00810 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00811 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00812 (Patent 8,850,009 B2) 1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in all cases. The parties are
`not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00810 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00811 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00812 (Patent 8,850,009 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In an email dated April 12, 2016, Petitioner, Apple Inc., asked that we
`change the final hearing date of June 8, 2016, set in the Scheduling Order
`(SO, Paper 9, 6) 2 to June 13 or 14, 2016. According to Petitioner’s email,
`Patent Owner, VirnetX Inc., has no objection to the change in hearing date.
`Petitioner’s email represents that its lead counsel in each of the cases
`identified above “must conduct a deposition in Japan on June 6–10, which
`includes the date of the oral hearing in IPR2015-00810, -00811, -00812
`(June 8th).” Lead counsel states this conflict has recently come to his
`attention. Lead counsel represents that scheduling issues prevent it from
`changing the dates of the Japanese depositions.
`Patent Owner’s position in the email is that it is agreeable to having
`backup counsel present argument for Petitioner. Patent Owner states that
`backup counsel has argued for Petitioner in the past. At present, lead
`counsel represents that it is not prepared to proceed with having backup
`counsel represent Petitioner at the hearing. Petitioner, however, has not
`explained why backup counsel is not available for the scheduled oral
`argument date. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) (“If a party is represented by
`counsel, the party must designate a lead counsel and at least one back-up
`counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel.”).
`II. DISCUSSION
`The Scheduling Order does not permit the parties to stipulate to a
`change in the final hearing date (DUE DATE 7). SO, 2.A. The Scheduling
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, we refer to the papers in IPR2015-00811.
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00810 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00811 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00812 (Patent 8,850,009 B2)
`
`
`
`Order also provides that the parties may contact the Board if there is a need
`for changes. Id. at 2.1. The Board may change the final hearing date at its
`discretion. Mere convenience of lead counsel does not, by itself, justify the
`burden on the Office of changing the date of a hearing that was scheduled
`seven months ago. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48756, 48758 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The Office expects that lead counsel will,
`and back-up counsel may, participate in all hearings and conference calls
`with the Board . . . . In addition, the role of back-up counsel is to conduct
`business with the Office on behalf of lead counsel when lead counsel is not
`available.”). The schedules of all involved must be considered in
`determining whether to alter a scheduled oral argument date, including the
`resources of the Board.
`With the preceding in mind, we authorize Petitioner to file a motion to
`change the hearing date. The motion should address, at least, the following
`questions in showing why we should change the final hearing date:3
`1. When did lead counsel become aware of the need for his
`participation in the Japanese depositions?
`2.
`Are other attorneys in lead counsel’s law firm representing lead
`counsel’s Japanese client? What has been done to have one or more of the
`other attorneys take the Japanese depositions?
`
`
`3 None of the questions are intended to elicit privileged information or
`communications.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00810 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00811 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00812 (Patent 8,850,009 B2)
`
`
`
`
`3.
`Are there any specific reasons that Petitioner would prefer lead
`counsel, as opposed to backup counsel, make the argument at the final
`hearing?
`4.
`In general, what efforts have been made to accommodate the
`current final hearing date?
`We are mindful that Patent Owner’s counsel has planned on a June 8,
`2016, final hearing date. Accordingly, Patent Owner will be provided an
`opportunity to respond.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`ORDERED that by April 20, 2016, Petitioner is authorized to file a
`motion, not exceeding seven pages (excluding any attachments), to change
`the final hearing date from June 8, 2016, to June 13 or 14, 2016;
`FURTHER ORDERED that by April 22, 2016, Patent Owner may,
`but is not required to, file a response, not exceeding five pages (excluding
`any attachments), to Petitioner’s motion; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be filed in
`IPR2015-00810, IPR2015-00811, and IPR2015-00812.
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00810 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00811 (Patent 8,868,705 B2)
`IPR2015-00812 (Patent 8,850,009 B2)
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`Scott Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`IPRNotices@sidley.com
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Jason E. Stach
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`Jason.stach@finnegan.com
`
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket