From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Houston, Michael R.
`Trials
`Aaron Olejniczak; ewilliams@andruslaw.com; Marie Mikolainis; Kevin Spexarth; Rittmaster, Ted R.
`PGR2021-00085 -- Question for panel regarding proposed stipulated schedule change
`Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:07:05 PM
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`Dear PTAB,
`
`I am counsel for Petitioner, Pelican Biothermal, in PGR2021-00085. I am reaching out to the Board
`to seek permission on behalf of the parties to adjust certain schedule dates set forth in the
`Scheduling Order. Specifically, Petitioner and Patent Owner would like to move back by four weeks
`the portion of Due Date 2 related to Petitioner’s opposition to a motion to amend, and the portion
`of Due Date 3 related to Patent Owner’s reply to an opposition to a motion to amend (or Patent
`Owner’s revised motion to amend). Related to this change, the parties likewise propose to move the
`portion of Due Date 5 related to Petitioner’s sur-reply to Patent Owner’s reply to the opposition to
`the motion to amend back by two weeks. The parties’ proposed changes are summarized in the
`table below:
`
`Due Date 2:
`Petitioner’s opposition to the motion
`to amend
`Due Date 3:
`Patent Owner’s reply to the
`opposition to the motion to amend
`and/or preliminary guidance (if
`provided); or revised motion to
`amend
`Due Date 5:
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to Patent
`Owner’s reply to the opposition to the
`motion to amend
`
`Current deadline
`June 3, 2022
`
`Proposed new deadline
`July 1, 2022
`
`July 15, 2022
`
`August 12, 2022
`
`August 26, 2022
`
`September 9, 2022
`
`The parties are seeking the Board’s permission to stipulate to the above proposed schedule changes
`pursuant to the requirement set forth in the Scheduling Order in this proceeding. See Paper No. 10,
`at 8 (“The parties may not stipulate to a different date for the portion of DUE DATE 2 related to
`Petitioner’s opposition to a motion to amend, or for the portion of DUE DATE 3 related to Patent
`Owner’s reply to an opposition to a motion to amend (or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend)
`without prior authorization from the Board.”). The parties are seeking this extension because only
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend remains at issue in this proceeding, and the parties would like
`additional time to see if settlement can be reached before Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to
`PGR2021-00085
`Ex. 3003
`
`

`

`amend is due.
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel is copied on this email, and counsel for both parties can be available for a
`teleconference if the Board would like to discuss this issue.
`
`
`Thank you,
`
`Mike Houston
`Counsel for Petitioner, Pelican Biothermal
`
`
`The information contained in this message, including but not limited to any attachments, may
`be confidential or protected by the attorney-client or work-product privileges. It is not
`intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this
`message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message
`in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and any attachments or copies. Any disclosure,
`copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly
`prohibited, and may be unlawful. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the
`attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. Legal advice contained in the preceding
`message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm
`in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any
`other party. Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this message should be
`construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an intention to make
`an agreement by electronic means.
`
`