Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 18
`
`
`
` Entered: August 12, 2016
`
` 
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
` ADAMA MAKHTESHIM LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINCHIMICA S.P.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00577
`Patent 8,304,559 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY GARDNER LANE Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SECOND ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00577
`Patent 8,304,559 B2
` 
`The parties contacted the Board regarding scheduling a conference call to
`
`request an extension of times set in the Scheduling Order. In particular, Patent
`Order represented, via email communication, that its lead counsel recently
`underwent urgent surgery such that lead counsel has been unable to participate
`fully in preparing the Patent Owner response1 currently due on 17 August 2016.
`Petitioner filed an email in response to Patent Owner’s email. Both emails are in
`an attachment to this Order. (See attached email communication).
`
`The concerns regarding scheduling raised by both parties have been
`considered. Under the circumstances, all times, except for the oral argument date,2
`are extended by two weeks as reflected in the attached Appendix.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that, as reflected in the Appendix to this Order, the
`
`
`Modified Scheduling Order (Paper 16, Appendix) is modified to extend all times
`except for the oral argument date, by two weeks.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1
`In the email Patent Owner stated that it is not filing a motion to amend its
`claims.
`2
`The oral argument date was modified from that set in the Scheduling Order
`entered 24 May 2016 (Paper 8). The date was changed from 16 February 2017 to
`14 February 2017. (Order Modifying Scheduling Order, Paper 16).
`2
`
` 
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00577
`Patent 8,304,559 B2
` 
`PETITIONER:
`
`Gary Gershik
`ggershik@cooperdunham.com
`
`Norman Zivin
`nzivin@cooperdunham.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Edward Figg
`efigg@rfem.com
`
`Robert Huntington
`dhuntington@rothwellfigg.com
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00577
`Patent 8,304,559 B2
` 
`
`
`SECOND MODIFIED DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL.............................................UPON REQUEST
`DUE DATE 1 ...........................................................................31 August 2016
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................23 November 2016
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`DUE DATE 3 ..............................................................................21 December 2016
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`DUE DATE 4 ..............................................................................04 January 2017
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................................19 January 2017
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`DUE DATE 6 ...............................................................................02 February 2017
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`DUE DATE 7 ...............................................................................14 February 2017
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`
`From: Gary J. Gershik [mailto:GGERSHIK@COOPERDUNHAM.COM]  
`Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:46 PM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: E. Anthony Figg <efigg@rothwellfigg.com>; Danny Huntington <dhuntington@rothwellfigg.com>; Seth E. Cockrum 
`<scockrum@rothwellfigg.com>; Sharon Crane <scrane@rothwellfigg.com>; Derek F. Dahlgren 
`<ddahlgren@rothwellfigg.com>; Erik van Leeuwen <evanlee@rothwellfigg.com>; Norman Zivin 
`<NZIVIN@COOPERDUNHAM.COM> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2016‐00577; ADAMA MAKHTESHIM LTD. (Petitioner) v. FINCHIMICA S.P.A. (Patent Owner) 
`
`Dear Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`
`I write on behalf of Petitioner, Adama Makhteshim Ltd., to clarify an inaccuracy in Finchimica’s below email and
`to provide the Board with all of the facts regarding the extension issue ahead of any telephone
`conference. Contrary to the third sentence of the third paragraph of Patent Owner’s below email, Petitioner did
`not agree to a three week extension under any conditions.
`
`On July 22nd, Finchimica first requested a three week extension for filing its Patent Owner’s Response “[b]ecause
`of summer vacation schedules and deadlines in other cases.” On the same day Adama replied by (1) pointing
`out that such an extension would unduly constrain the schedule, but (2) indicated a willingness “to add one extra
`week to [Finchimica’s] period if [Finchimica would] agree to add one extra week to [Adama’s] period, such that
`Due Date 1 would be August 24, 2016 and Due Date 2 would be November 23, 2016.” Adama’s counsel was
`and remains concerned that extra time will result in Finchimica preparing a complicated Patent Owner Response,
`for which Adama would likewise need more time to prepare a reply.
`
`In an August 9th email, Finchimica requested a two-week extension to August 31, 2016. In response, Adama
`again expressed its concern that Finchimica’s proposal “provides Finchimica with an extra 2 weeks of total time
`to prepare the Response, yet it provides Adama with no extra time to prepare its Reply.” Nonetheless, to
`accommodate Finchimica’s Lead Counsel, Adama indicated a willingness to provide Finchimica with its
`requested two week extension if Finchimica (1) agreed to extend Due Date 2 to December 7, 2016 to analogously
`provide Adama with two extra weeks of preparation time, and (2) agreed to schedule deposition of its expert(s)
`in Washington, D.C. or New York City taking into account the Thanksgiving holiday which would be subsumed
`within Petitioner’s period for reply.
`
`On August 10th, Finchimica expressed a willingness to accept Adama’s two week extension proposal, on the
`condition that “[Adama] will agree to either: (1) not submit a new declaration from Dr. Gribble with Adama’s
`Reply, or (2) agree to make Dr. Gribble available for deposition on December 19 or 20, and agree to move due
`dates 4 and 5 to January 3 and January 13 respectively.” In response, Adama proposed to deal with only Due
`Dates 1 and 2 at this time, and leave the remainder of the schedule as is until everyone has the benefit of further
`briefing.
`
`Two relevant email chains between counsel are attached providing the relevant facts.
`
`Counsel for Petitioner is available for a telephone conference if needed.
`
`Respectfully submitted on behalf of Petitioner,
`
`1
`
`ATTACHMENT
`
`

`
`Gary J. Gershik
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Adama Makhteshim Ltd.
`
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
`New York, New York 10112
`T: 212-278-0552 F: 212-391-0525
`_______________________________________
`This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and/or attorney‐client privileged information.  If you are 
`not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
`any review, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately. Thank 
`you.
`
`From: Danny Huntington [mailto:dhuntington@rothwellfigg.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 5:19 PM 
`To: 'trials@uspto.gov' <trials@uspto.gov> 
`Cc: Gary J. Gershik <GGERSHIK@COOPERDUNHAM.COM>; Norman Zivin <NZIVIN@COOPERDUNHAM.COM>; E. Anthony 
`Figg <efigg@rothwellfigg.com>; Seth E. Cockrum <scockrum@rothwellfigg.com>; Sharon Crane 
`<scrane@rothwellfigg.com>; Derek F. Dahlgren <ddahlgren@rothwellfigg.com>; Erik van Leeuwen 
`<evanlee@rothwellfigg.com> 
`Subject: IPR2016‐00577; ADAMA MAKHTESHIM LTD. (Petitioner) v. FINCHIMICA S.P.A. (Patent Owner) 
`
`The undersigned Backup Counsel for Finchimica requests a telephone conference to discuss moving Due Date 1 three 
`weeks from August 17th to September 7th, and Due Date 2 a corresponding amount from November 9th to November 
`30th.   
`
`On August 4, 2016, Lead Counsel for Finchimica had urgent eye surgery to repair a retinal problem that arose within the 
`past few weeks. He is still recovering and expects significant vision impairment for at least another week or more.  In the 
`interim, he is unable to see out of one eye and has not been able to go to the office for the past week. He has difficulty 
`reading, especially lengthy documents.   He has been primarily responsible for Finchimica’s strategy, and deposed 
`Petitioner’s expert the day before having surgery.  As such it is essential that he be involved in preparation of 
`Finchimica’s response.  In addition, Finchimica is an Italian company, and, as is customary in Italy, is closed during the 
`month of August.  As a result, the ability to confer with representatives of Finchimica while preparing the response is 
`severely hampered. 
`
`Counsel for Finchimica has informed counsel for Petitioner that Patent Owner will not be filing a motion to amend the 
`Finchimica claims.  Accordingly, the only paper due at Due Date 2 will be Petitioner’s reply.  Counsel for Petitioner has 
`refused to agree to the proposed extension unless Due Date 2 is moved to December 7th.  However, if Petitioner is given 
`
`permission to file a declaration with its reply, having Due Date 2 be December 7th would not leave sufficient time to 
`depose the declarant and prepare observations before Due Date 4, which is currently set for December 21st.  Counsel for 
`Finchimica was willing to agree to moving Due Date 2 to December 7th if agreement could be reached on a way to deal 
`with that issue and suggested such a way, but after conferring, the parties were unable to reach agreement. 
`
`Counsel for the parties are available for a telephone conference. 
`
`Respectfully submitted, 
`R. Danny Huntington 
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner Finchimica 
`
`2
`
`

`
`R. Danny Huntington, Esq.
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Main No: (202) 783-6040
`Fax No: (202) 783-6031
`dhuntington@rfem.com
`
`STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
`The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
`addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy,
`distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Rothwell, Figg, Ernst
`& Manbeck, P.C. immediately at (202) 783-6040 or email us at dhuntington@rfem.com, and destroy all copies of this message and any
`attachments. 
`
`3