`571-272-7822
`
`
`Entered: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`1. Initial Conference Call
` An initial conference call is optional; the parties are directed to
`contact the Board within a month of this decision to schedule an initial
`conference call only if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this
`Scheduling Order or proposed motions. The parties are directed to the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug.
`14, 2012) for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and
`should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to this Scheduling
`Order and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`2. Protective Order
`A protective order does not exist in this proceeding unless the parties
`file one and the Board approves it. We encourage the parties to adopt the
`Board’s default protective order if they conclude that a protective order is
`necessary. See Default Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, App. B (Aug. 14, 2012). If the parties choose to
`propose a protective order deviating from the default protective order, they
`must submit the proposed protective order jointly along with a marked-up
`comparison of the proposed and default protective orders showing the
`differences.
`The Board has a strong interest in the public availability of the
`proceedings. We advise the parties that redactions to documents filed in this
`proceeding should be limited strictly too isolated passages consisting
`entirely of confidential information, and that the thrust of the underlying
`argument or evidence must be clearly discernible from the redacted versions.
`We also advise the parties that information subject to a protective order will
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`
`become public if identified in a final written decision in this proceeding, and
`that a motion to expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over
`the public interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history.
`See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761.
`3. Motions to Amend
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization
`from the Board. Nevertheless, Patent Owner must confer with the Board
`before filing such a motion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Patent Owner should
`arrange for a conference call with the panel and opposing counsel at least one
`week before DUE DATE 1 in order to satisfy the conferral requirement.
`4. Discovery Disputes
`The panel encourages parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery
`on their own and in accordance with the precepts set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(b). To the extent that a dispute arises between the parties relating to
`discovery, the parties shall meet and confer to resolve such a dispute before
`contacting the Board. If attempts to resolve the dispute fail, a party may
`request a conference call with the Board and the other party in order to seek
`authorization to move for relief.
`5. Depositions
`The parties are advised that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14,
`2012) (Appendix D), apply to this proceeding. The Board may impose an
`appropriate sanction for failure to adhere to the Testimony Guidelines.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees
`incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or
`frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Whenever a party submits a deposition transcript as an exhibit in this
`proceeding, the submitting party shall file the full transcript of the deposition
`rather than excerpts of only those portions being cited. After a deposition
`transcript has been submitted as an exhibit, all parties who subsequently cite
`to portions of the transcript shall cite to the first-filed exhibit rather than
`submitting another copy of the same transcript.
`6. Cross-Examination
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1.
`Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is
`due. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`2.
`Cross-examination ends no later than a week before the filing
`date for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to
`be used. Id.
`7. Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination
`A motion for observation on cross-examination provides the parties
`with a mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-
`examination testimony of a reply witness because no further substantive
`paper is permitted after the reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The observation must be a
`concise statement of the relevance of precisely identified testimony to a
`precisely identified argument or portion of an exhibit. Each observation
`should not exceed a single, short paragraph. The opposing party may
`respond to the observation. Any response must be equally concise and
`specific.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`B. DUE DATES
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate to different dates for DUE
`DATES 1 through 5 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 6). A
`notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must
`be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate to an extension of DUE
`DATES 6 and 7.
`In stipulating to different times, the parties should consider the effect
`of the stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)), to
`supplement evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-
`examination (37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the
`evidence and cross-examination testimony.
`1. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file—
`a.
`A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`b.
`A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE
`DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner
`must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board. The patent
`owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the
`response will be deemed waived.
`2. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and
`opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`3. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to
`patent owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`4. DUE DATE 4
`a.
`Each party must file any motion for an observation on the
`cross-examination testimony of a reply witness (see section A.8, above) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`b.
`Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(c)) and any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by
`DUE DATE 4.
`5. DUE DATE 5
`a.
`Each party must file any reply to a petitioner observation on
`cross-examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`b.
`Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence by DUE DATE 5.
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by
`DUE DATE 6.
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`
`
`INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ............................................. Upon Request
`
`DUE DATE 1 ........................................................................ January 26, 2018
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................ April 26, 2018
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................. May 29, 2018
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ............................................................................. June 19, 2018
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................................ July 3, 2018
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 .............................................................................. July 10, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 .............................................................................. July 24, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01277
`Patent 6,345,779 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Eliot D. Williams
`Robert Scheinfeld
`Robert L. Maier
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`Robert.maier@bakerbotts.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Brett N. Watkins
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`kevinjohnson@guinnemanuel.com
`brettwatkins@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Matthew Smith
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`