Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 24
`Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01471 (Patent 8,412,197 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01473 (Patent 8,885,583 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01474 (Patent 8,639,246 B2)
` Case IPR2017-01475 (Patent 8,996,003 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 24
`Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01471 (Patent 8,412,197 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01473 (Patent 8,885,583 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01474 (Patent 8,639,246 B2)
` Case IPR2017-01475 (Patent 8,996,003 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01471 (Patent 8,412,197 B2)
`IPR2017-01473 (Patent 8,885,583 B2)
`IPR2017-01474 (Patent 8,639,246 B2)
`IPR2017-01475 (Patent 8,996,003 B2)
`
`
`
`A. INTRODUCTION
`On May 8, 2018, we modified our institution decision to include
`review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition in view
`of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`1348 (2018) and the Office’s guidance2 in view of the SAS decision. See
`Paper 25.3 We also ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine
`whether they desired additional briefing on the previously non-instituted
`claims and grounds, and whether any changes to the schedule would be
`needed to accommodate such briefing. On May 10, 2018, Patent Owner
`requested additional briefing and a conference call with the panel to discuss
`corresponding changes to the schedule.
`On May 17, 2018, Judges Jefferson, Wormmeester, and Horvath
`participated in a conference call with the parties. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. (“Petitioner”) was represented by Marissa Ducca, and Huawei
`Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) was represented by Jeffrey P.
`Kushan and Samuel Dillon. A transcript of the call has been filed by Patent
`Owner. See Ex. 2014 (“Tr.”). Prior to the call, the parties jointly emailed
`the panel to indicate they had reached agreement on a request for additional
`briefing and a briefing schedule. See Ex. 3001. Per the agreement, the
`parties jointly requested that Patent Owner be granted four weeks to file a
`
`
`2 See Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26,
`2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial).
`3 Citations are to the record in IPR2017-01471, unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01471 (Patent 8,412,197 B2)
`IPR2017-01473 (Patent 8,885,583 B2)
`IPR2017-01474 (Patent 8,639,246 B2)
`IPR2017-01475 (Patent 8,996,003 B2)
`
`
`5,000-word supplemental response to the newly instituted grounds together
`with a supplemental expert report, and Petitioner be granted a 19,000-word
`reply responsive to Patent Owner’s response and supplemental response due
`five weeks after Petitioner’s currently scheduled response. Id. The parties
`also jointly requested that all pending due dates, including the hearing date,
`for all pending cases between the parties (IPR2017-01471, IPR2017-01472,
`IPR2017-01473, IPR2017-01474, IPR2017-01475, IPR2017-01483, and
`IPR2017-01487) be extended by five weeks regardless of whether additional
`briefing is required in the cases. Id.
`As indicated in the transcript of the call, the panel was unable to
`confirm its ability to reschedule all seven cases for hearing over a several
`day window in mid-September that would accommodate the parties’ request
`to minimize their overseas travel. See Tr. 10:19–11:9. Therefore, the panel
`asked the parties to meet and confer to discuss whether they would prefer to
`leave the currently scheduled mid-August hearing dates in place, or to move
`the hearing dates to mid-September and risk the possibility that the cases
`may have to be heard in separate hearings over an extended period of time.
`Id. at 18:21–21:20.
`On May 23, 2018, the parties again jointly emailed the panel,
`indicating that after further conferring they still wished to shift the oral
`hearing dates in all seven cases by five weeks, and would agree to any
`combination of hearing dates within a 12-day window spanning the period
`between September 25, 2018 and October 12, 2018. See Ex. 3002. The
`parties also requested that the hearings for IPR2017-01471, IPR2017-01474,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01471 (Patent 8,412,197 B2)
`IPR2017-01473 (Patent 8,885,583 B2)
`IPR2017-01474 (Patent 8,639,246 B2)
`IPR2017-01475 (Patent 8,996,003 B2)
`
`
`and IPR2017-01475, which involve related patents, be held on the same day.
`Id.
`B: REVISED DUE DATES
`The panel has considered the parties’ request, and hereby reschedules
`the hearing date for IPR2017-01471, IPR2017-01473, IPR2017-01474, and
`IPR2017-01475 to September 27, 2018. The following revised due dates
`apply to each of these cases:
`
`DUE DATE 1A ................................................................ July 2, 20184
`Patent owner’s supplemental response to the petition, limited to 5000
`words responsive to the previously non-instituted claims and grounds
`Patent owner’s supplemental motion to amend the patent, limited to
`the previously non-instituted claims
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................... August 6, 2018
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response and supplemental
`response to petition, limited to 19,000 words5
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`
`4 This due date applies to IPR2017-01471 and IPR2017-01473 only, no
`supplemental response or supplemental motion to amend is authorized for
`IPR2017-01474 and IPR2017-01475.
`5 Petitioner’s reply is extended to 19,000 words for IPR2017-01471 and
`IPR2017-01473 only. The replies for IPR2017-01474 and IPR2017-01475
`are limited to 14,000 words.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01471 (Patent 8,412,197 B2)
`IPR2017-01473 (Patent 8,885,583 B2)
`IPR2017-01474 (Patent 8,639,246 B2)
`IPR2017-01475 (Patent 8,996,003 B2)
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 4 .......................................................... September 4, 2018
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ........................................................ September 11, 2018
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ........................................................ September 18, 2018
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ........................................................ September 27, 2018
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01471 (Patent 8,412,197 B2)
`IPR2017-01473 (Patent 8,885,583 B2)
`IPR2017-01474 (Patent 8,639,246 B2)
`IPR2017-01475 (Patent 8,996,003 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Marissa Ducca
`Deepa Acharya
`Jared Newton
`Brian Mack
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`marissaducca@quinnemanuel.com
`deepaacharya@quinnemanuel.com
`jarednewton@quinnemanuel.com
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Joseph A. Micallef
`jkushan@sidley.com
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`
`
`6
`
`
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
