iTakeaway: The Board will likely not alter a scheduling order in a manner that would impair its ability to issue a final decision within one year of institution, as required by statute, despite any difficulties the parties may have in conducting discovery or any agreements they may reach regarding the scheduling order.
In its Order, the Board denied the parties’ Joint Motion to Adjust the Scheduling Order. The parties requested that the Scheduling Order be adjusted to allow for a single deposition rather than multiple depositions in the proceedings. However, the proposed schedule would have moved Due Date 7 by six weeks. The parties argued that the proposed schedule would still allow for a final written decision within one year from institution if proceedings are not instituted in IPR2014-00506 or IPR2014-00507, or if those two proceedings are not joined with the instant proceedings.
In denying the request, the Board stated that Due Date 7 was originally set for November 7, 2014 in both proceedings, and that the proposed schedule would move that date to December 19, 2014. Because both proceedings were instituted on February 12, 2014, the one year statutory due date for the final decision is February 12, 2015. As the Board explained, if IPR2014-00506 and IPR2014-00507 are not joined, then the Board would only have 8 weeks to issue the final decision in both IPR2013-00505 and 2013-00509.
The Board denied the requested adjustment to the Scheduling Order but authorized the parties to stipulate to changes in Due Dates 4 and 5 in addition to Due Dates 1-3 to accommodate any joinder, with the proviso that the request be filed by the original Due Date 4 if an oral hearing is being requested.
Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever v. The Proctor & Gamble Company, IPR2013-00505; IPR2013-00509
Paper 21: Order on Conduct of the Proceedings
Dated: May 28, 2014
Patents: 6,974,569 B2; 6,451,300 B1
Before: Lora M. Green, Grace Karaffa Obermann, and Rama G. Elluru
Written by: Green
Related Proceedings: IPR2014-00506; IPR2014-00507
