`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: September 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MINIATURE PRECISION COMPONENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EAGLE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`
`
`On August 31, 2018, Petitioner and Patent Owner contacted the
`Board, whereby Petitioner sought a conference call with the Board to discuss
`a disagreement between the parties regarding the scope of Patent Owner’s
`demonstrative exhibits. Petitioner argues that some of Patent Owner’s
`demonstrative exhibits present new arguments and evidence, while Patent
`Owner argues that they include proper responses to Petitioner’s
`mischaracterizations of deposition testimony.
`At this time, the panel does not view a pre-hearing conference call to
`resolve disputes regarding the demonstrative exhibits as necessary. The
`parties are reminded that demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, and no
`new arguments or evidence, not supported by the arguments and evidence
`already of record, will be considered by the panel in reaching its final
`decision. Specifically, use of new evidence, including new physical
`samples, photos, and videos, used to advance new theories, rather than
`provide background or clarify existing argument and evidence, will not be
`considered. We will presume that any demonstrative that includes material
`that does NOT readily correlate to a corresponding Exhibit or Paper number
`is improper.
`Patent Owner may, however, refute alleged attempts by Petitioner to
`mischaracterize deposition testimony in the Reply using, for example, the
`deponent’s declaration and other argument and evidence of record, including
`other portions of the deposition transcript.
`If a party feels the other party has violated these guidelines by
`introducing new argument and evidence, the party can raise that issue at the
`hearing during that party’s turn to speak. Standing objections are generally
`not permitted. Please note that this Order does not reach the merits of the
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`
`parties’ disagreement.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the request for a conference call to discuss the
`parties’ disagreement regarding the scope of Patent Owner’s demonstrative
`exhibits is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John S. Artz
`Bryan J. Schomer
`DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
`jsartz@dickinsonwright.com
`bschomer@dickinsonwright.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jacob D. Koering
`CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE
`koering@millercanfield.com
`
`
`4
`
`
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
