`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: May 3, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEMICAPS PTE LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02110
`Case IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B21
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 This Paper will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110
`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S.
`Apr. 24, 2018). In our Decisions on Institution, we determined that
`Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish in
`each of the above-captioned cases that at least one of the challenged claims
`of the ’982 patent is unpatentable. IPR2017-02110, Paper 8;
`IPR2017-02112, Paper 8. We modify our institution decisions to institute on
`all of the challenged claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petitions
`in IPR2017-02110 (Paper 1) and IPR2017-02112 (Paper 1). 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.
`The parties shall confer to discuss the impact, if any, of this Order on
`the current schedule. If, after conferring, the parties wish to change the
`schedule or submit further briefing, the parties must, within one week of the
`date of this Order, request a conference call with the panel to seek
`authorization for such changes or briefing.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that our institution decisions are modified to include
`review of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petitions in
`IPR2017-02110 (Paper 1) and IPR2017-02112 (Paper 1); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine whether they desire any changes to the schedule or any further
`briefing, and, if so, shall request a conference call with the panel to seek
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110
`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`authorization for such changes or briefing within one week of the date of this
`Order.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110
`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`John G. Smith
`William S. Foster
`Christopher Bruenjes
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`john.smith@dbr.com
`william.foster@dbr.com christopher.bruenjes@dbr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David D. Schumann
`Hector Ribera
`MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & CHANG LLP
`david@martonribera.com
`hector@martonribera.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`