`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`OBALON THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TILAK M. SHAH
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00812
`Patent No. 7,682,306 B2
` ____________
`
`February 21, 2017
`
`
`Before Debra A. Vitus, Trial Paralegal
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION
`AND
`TIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`The petition for “inter partes review,” filed in the above proceeding has
`been accorded the filing date of January 30, 2017. Patent Owner may file a
`preliminary response to the petition no later than three months from the date of
`this notice. The preliminary response is limited to setting forth the reasons why
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00812
`Patent No. 7,682,306 B2
`
`the requested review should not be instituted. Patent Owner may also file an
`election to waive the preliminary response to expedite the proceeding. For
`more information, please consult the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), which is available on the Board Web site at
`http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.
`Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the
`petition.
`The parties are encouraged to use the heading on the first page of this
`Notice for all future filings in the proceeding.
`The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of
`counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause. The parties are
`authorized to file motions for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c). Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order --
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639,
`Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.”
`The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board
`Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB. To file documents, users must
`register with PTAB E2E. Information regarding how to register with and use
`PTAB E2E is available at the Board Web site.
`If there are any questions pertaining to this notice, please contact Debra
`Vitus at 571-272-2039 or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-7822.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00812
`Patent No. 7,682,306 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Desmond O’Sullivan
`dosullivan@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven Hultquist
`Hultquist IP
`P.O. Box 14329
`Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00812
`Patent No. 7,682,306 B2
`
`
`NOTICE CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
`
`
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) strongly encourages parties who are
`considering settlement to consider alternative dispute resolution as a means of settling the
`issues that may be raised in an AIA trial proceeding. Many AIA trials are settled prior to a
`Final Written Decision. Those considering settlement may wish to consider alternative
`dispute resolution techniques early in a proceeding to produce a quicker, mutually agreeable
`resolution of a dispute or to at least narrow the scope of matters in dispute. Alternative
`dispute resolution has the potential to save parties time and money.
`
`Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual property field,
`offer alternative dispute resolution services. Listed below are the names and addresses of
`several such organizations. The listings are provided for the convenience of parties involved
`in cases before the PTAB; the PTAB does not sponsor or endorse any particular
`organization’s alternative dispute resolution services. In addition, consideration may be
`given to utilizing independent alternative dispute resolution firms. Such firms may be
`located through a standard keyword Internet search.
`
`CPR
`INSTITUTE
`FOR DISPUTE
`RESOLUTION
`
`AMERICAN
`INTELLECTU
`AL PROPERTY
`LAW
`ASSOCIATION
`(AIPLA)
`Telephone:
`(703) 415-0780
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 949-6490
`
`Fax: (212) 949-
`8859
`575 Lexington
`Ave
`New York, NY
`10022
`
`Fax: (703) 415-
`0786
`241 18th Street,
`South, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA
`22202
`
`AMERICAN
`ARBITRATI
`ON
`ASSOCIATI
`ON (AAA)
`
`Telephone:
`(212) 484-
`3266
`Fax: (212)
`307-4387
`140 West 51st
`Street
`
`New York,
`NY 10020
`
`WORLD
`INTELLECTU
`AL
`PROPERTY
`ORGANIZATI
`ON (WIPO)
`
`Telephone:
`41 22 338 9111
`Fax: 41 22 733
`5428
`34, chemin des
`Colombettes
`CH-1211
`Geneva 20,
`Switzerland
`
`AMERICAN
`BAR
`ASSOCIATION
`(ABA)
`
`Telephone :
`(202) 662-1000
`
`N/A
`1050 Connecticut
`Ave, NW
`Washington D.C.
`20036
`
`www.americanba
`r.org
`
`www.cpradr.org www.aipla.org
`
`www.adr.org www.wipo.int
`
`
`
`If parties to an AIA trial proceeding consider using alternative dispute resolution, the
`PTAB would like to know whether the parties ultimately decided to engage in alternative
`dispute resolution and the reasons why or why not. If the parties actually engage in
`alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g.,
`arbitration, mediation, etc.) was used and the general result. Such a statement from the
`parties is not required but would be helpful to the PTAB in assessing the value of alternative
`dispute resolution to parties involved in AIA trial proceedings. To report an experience with
`ADR, please forward a summary of the particulars to the following email address:
`PTAB_ADR_Comments@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`4
`
`