`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`Entered: July 12, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`STIHL INCORPORATED and ANDREAS STIHL AG & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTROJECT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`On July 3, 2018, the parties filed a motion to extend Due Dates 6 and
`7. Paper 19. The parties did not seek prior authorization to file any such
`motion, and the motion is denied. The parties are directed to 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.20(a) & (b), and the Scheduling Order (Paper 14), for the proper
`course of conduct required to file a motion. Namely, a party may not file a
`motion without prior authorization, and if prior authorization is not already
`provided by Rule or Order, it must be sought via a request for a conference
`call. Although the Scheduling Order permits stipulated changes to Due
`Dates 1–5, it specifically forbids stipulated changes to Due Dates 6 and 7.
`Paper 14, 7.
`
`Furthermore, On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) must decide the patentability of all
`claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348,
`1355 (2018). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish all challenged
`claims of the ’081 patent are unpatentable over two grounds based on Abe,
`but not two grounds based on Ostdiek. Paper 13, 12–13. In light of the
`Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings posted on April
`26, 2018 (at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-
`and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial), we modify our
`Institution Decision to institute on all of the grounds presented in the
`Petition.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Robert Hilton
`rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
`
`George Davis
`gdavis@mcguirewoods.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Lewry
`tlewry@brookskushman.com
`
`Michael MacCallum
`mmaccallum@brookskushman.com
`
`John Nemazi
`jnemazi@brookskushman.com
`
`John Rondini
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`
`Mark Jotanovic
`mjotanovic@brookskushman.com
`
`
`3
`
`