Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 17
`
` Entered: May 24, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JON B. TORNQUIST, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 17
`
` Entered: May 24, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JON B. TORNQUIST, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`
`Fujifilm Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition seeking inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–18 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,896,959 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’959 patent”) based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Mori1
`
`Sasaki2
`
`Aonuma3
`
`Aunoma and Mori
`
`Aonuma and
`Sasaki
`
`Mori and Aonuma
`
`Mori and Sasaki
`
`Sasaki and
`Aonuma
`Mori, Mee,4 and
`Tokuoka5
`Sasaki, Mee, and
`Tokuoka
`
`Aonuma
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Challenged
`
`1–9 and 11–16
`
`1–9 and 11–18
`
`1, 2, and 4–18
`
`1–18
`
`1 and 6
`
`10, 17, and 18
`
`17 and 18
`
`10
`
`1–9 and 11–16
`
`1–9 and 11–18
`
`1, 2, and 4–18
`
`
`
`1 Mori et al., JP 2002-74641A, published Mar. 15, 2002 (“Mori,” Ex. 1003
`(certified translation); Ex. 1022 (original)).
`2 Sasaki et al., JP 2000-40217A, published Feb. 8, 2000 (“Sasaki,” Ex. 1004
`(certified translation); Ex. 1019 (original)).
`3 Aonuma, JP 2001-319315A, published Nov. 16, 2001 (“Aonuma,”
`Ex. 1002 (certified translation); Ex. 1018 (original)).
`4 Magnetic Recording, Volume I: Technology (C. Denis Mee & Eric. D.
`Daniel eds., 1987) (“Mee,” Ex. 1005).
`5 Tokuoka, U.S. Patent No. 4,347,291, issued Aug. 31, 1982 (“Tokuoka,”
`Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Sony Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). In our
`
`institution decision, we ordered review of all challenged claims but limited
`
`the proceeding to Grounds 1, 2, and 4–8. Paper 9. On April 27, 2018, we
`
`modified our institution decision to include review of “all challenged claims
`
`and all grounds presented in the Petition.” Paper 15, 2.
`
`
`
`In view of our April 27, 2018 Order modifying the institution
`
`decision, the parties filed a Joint Proposal for Additional Briefing and a
`
`Revised Schedule. Paper 16. According to the parties’ Joint Proposal,
`
`“Petitioner agrees to withdraw Ground 9 (combination of Mori in view of
`
`Mee and Tokuoka) and Ground 10 (combination of Sasaki in view of Mee
`
`and Tokuoka) from its Petition.” Id. at 1. Grounds 3 and 11 remain in the
`
`proceeding, but Patent Owner agrees it will not seek to cross-examine
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Wang, on these grounds. Id.
`
`
`
`The parties agree that Patent Owner may file a supplemental
`
`Patent Owner Response addressing only Grounds 3 and 11 and limited to
`
`5,000 words. Id. The parties also agree that the supplemental response and
`
`supporting supplemental declaration of Dr. Bain (if necessary) shall be filed
`
`by June 15, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties further agree to modify DUE DATES 2 and 4 in the
`
`original Scheduling Order (Paper 10), such that the new deadline for DUE
`
`DATE 2 is July 27, 2018, and the new deadline for DUE DATE 4 is
`
`August 3, 2018. Paper 16, 1. The parties also agree that the deadline for
`
`DUE DATE 3 is no longer applicable. Id.
`
`
`
`Removing Grounds 9 and 10 from this dispute, allowing the requested
`
`briefing, and modifying the scheduling order, pursuant to the parties’ joint
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`request, serves our overarching goal of resolving this proceeding in a just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive manner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is limited to Grounds 1–8 and 11;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file a supplemental
`
`Patent Owner Response on or before June 15, 2018; such supplemental
`
`response shall address only Grounds 3 and 11, and is limited to 5,000 words;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall not cross-examine
`
`Dr. Wang on Grounds 3 and 11; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the schedule is modified such that the
`
`new deadline for DUE DATE 2 is July 27, 2018, and the new deadline for
`
`DUE DATE 4 is August 3, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01389
`Patent 6,896,959 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot Williams
`Eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`Robert Scheinfeld
`Robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`
`Robert Maier
`Robert.maier@bakerbotts.com
`
`Paul Ragusa
`Paul.ragusa@bakerbotts.com
`
`Jessica Lin
`Jessica.lin@bakerbotts.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kevin Johnson
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Joseph Milowic III
`josephmilowic@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Brett Watkins
`brettwatkins@quinnemanuel.com
`
`John McKee
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
