`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 13
`Filed: November 9, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`——————
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`——————
`EVERNOTE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TALSK RESEARCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`——————
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`
`
`On November 1, 2017, the initial conference call1 was held between
`counsel for the respective parties and Judges Medley, Begley, and Ogden.
`
`Motions
`
`Petitioner’s pending Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Robert
`Frederickson III, filed October 27, 2017, will be addressed in a separate
`order. Patent Owner does not anticipate filing a motion to amend, and
`neither party seeks authorization to file any other motion at this time. If
`Patent Owner determines that it will file a motion to amend, Patent Owner
`must arrange a conference call with the Board and opposing counsel to
`discuss the proposed motion to amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`In addition, a party seeking authorization to file a motion not
`contemplated per the Scheduling Order must arrange a conference call with
`opposing counsel and the Board.
`
`Schedule
`
`The parties do not propose any changes to the Scheduling Order dated
`September 28, 2017, and do not anticipate the need for any changes.
`To the extent issues arise with DATES 1–5 identified in the
`Scheduling Order, the parties are reminded that, without obtaining prior
`authorization from the Board, they may stipulate to different dates for
`DATES 1–5, as provided in the Scheduling Order, by filing an appropriate
`notice with the Board. The parties may not stipulate to any other changes to
`the Scheduling Order.
`
`
`1 The initial conference call is held to discuss the Scheduling Order and any
`motions that the parties anticipate filing during the trial. Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`
`
`Related Matters
`
`The parties state that they have stipulated to a stay in the related
`district court case Talsk Research, Inc. v. Evernote Corp., No. 3:17-cv-05576
`(N.D. Cal.).
`
`Settlement
`
`The parties have nothing to report with respect to settlement.
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Douglas Kline
`dkline@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Adeel Haroon
`aharoon@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott McKeown
`Scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Victor Cheung
`cpdocketcheung@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`