`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: May 1, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUANTUM STREAM INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01672
`Patent 9,047,626 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.05
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01672
`Patent 9,047,626 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On April 27, 2018, counsel for Petitioner contacted the Board by
`
`e-mail to request a telephone conference call to discuss whether Patent
`Owner’s failure to file a timely Patent Owner Response supports adjusting
`Due Dates 4 and 7 in the Scheduling Order (Paper 8). Petitioner stated in
`the April 27 e-mail that “Petitioner and Patent Owner have conferred, and
`Patent Owner does not oppose” modification of the Scheduling Order.
`
`DISCUSSION
`A conference call is not necessary to resolve this issue. Our
`
`Scheduling Order in this case set a due date of April 20, 2018 for Patent
`Owner’s Response to the Petition. Paper 8, 8. No Response has been timely
`filed, nor has Patent Owner requested an extension of time to file the
`Response. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s failure to file a
`timely Patent Owner Response supports adjustment of the Due Dates, and
`that Due Dates 2 and 3 are now moot and inapplicable. We disagree that
`Due Dates 5 and 6 are moot, because a party could file a motion to exclude
`without first objecting to the evidence in question, regardless of the
`likelihood of success of such a tactic. We therefore adjust Due Dates 5 and
`6, as well as Due Dates 4 and 7, as shown below in the Order.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01672
`Patent 9,047,626 B2
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is ORDERED that Due Dates 4–7 are reset as follows:
`
`DUE DATE 4 ............................................................................... June 5, 2018
`DUE DATE 5 ............................................................................. June 19, 2018
`DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................. June 26, 2018
`DUE DATE 7 ............................................................... To be determined; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that if either party requests oral argument, the
`party shall initiate a joint conference call with the Board within one week of
`the filing of the request for oral argument.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01672
`Patent 9,047,626 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`David L. McCombs
`David O’Dell
`Raghav Bajaj
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Roshan Mansinghani
`Jonathan Stroud
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Gregory S. Gewirtz
`Jonathan A. David
`LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
`ggewirtz.ipr@ldlkm.com
`jdavid.ipr@ldlkm.com
`
`4
`
`