`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: August 23, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY KOREA
`CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`Case IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue that is identical in all four cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of the four cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`On August 18, 2016, we received an email correspondence from
`Petitioner, LG Electronics, Incorporated and LG Electronics, U.S.A,
`Incorporated (collectively, “LG”), requesting a conference call to seek
`authorization to file a motion to reschedule the oral argument in each of the
`proceedings identified above. According to LG, the oral argument for these
`proceedings is scheduled on October 4, 2016, during the religious holiday of
`Rosh Hashanah. LG represented that, because Rosh Hashanah does not end
`until nightfall on October 4, 2016, back-up counsel for LG will not be able
`to participate in the oral argument. LG further represented that Patent
`Owner, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation
`(“Samsung”), does not oppose its request to reschedule the oral argument.
`After meeting and conferring, the parties proposed the following two
`alternative dates for the oral argument: (1) October 6, 2016 and (2) October
`13, 2016.
`Upon receiving the email correspondence from LG, we checked with
`the Board’s Administrative Staff to determine if there were any hearing
`rooms available on the two alternative dates proposed by the parties. We
`were notified that the only hearing room available for use was in the
`Alexandria campus on October 6, 2016. We then notified the parties via
`email that, based on the particular circumstances presented here, LG’s
`request to reschedule the oral argument in these cases is granted, and the
`date of the oral argument would be reset to October 6, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that LG’s request to reschedule the oral argument in these
`cases is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that DUE DATE 7, the date of the oral
`argument for these proceedings, is reset to October 6, 2016.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Jason M. Shapiro
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Michael V. Battaglia
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`jshapiro@rothwellfigg.com
`btollefson@rothwellfigg.com
`mbattaglia@rothwellfigg.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Jonathan A. Roberts
`Nixon & Vanderhye P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`jr@nixonvan.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
