My understanding is..it is simply the mandate from the CAFC is official. Noone asked for a rehearing or a stay of the mandate...so now the teleconferencing and all of hat takes place... Someone correct if I am wrong.. This is from pre Guidelines but explains it pretty well. The process is NOT fast. And with them not following the proper procedure and process the first time around, you better believe they will the second tome around.
Jurisdiction returns to the PTAB upon issuance of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Federal Circuit Rule 41. A teleconference with the PTAB may occur within a week to about a month after the mandate issues. While most orders do not indicate whether a party requested the teleconference, one order commented that no teleconference occurred because the parties failed to request one. adidas AG v. NIKE, Inc., IPR2013-00067 (Aug. 10, 2016) (Paper 62). While they are common, a teleconference does not always occur. See, e.g., Corning Optical Comm’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2013-00340 (May 20, 2016) (Paper 82) (without a prior teleconference, the PTAB issued an order to confer to determine whether supplemental briefing was necessary).
Briefing on Remand
The PTAB typically authorizes the parties to submit five- to 15-page briefs explaining the impact of the Federal Circuit’s ruling. But the Board has twice denied briefing following a request and has once decided not to authorize briefing when no party had made a request. See, e.g., Corning Optical Comm’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2013-00340 (May 20, 2016) (Paper 85); adidas AG v. NIKE, Inc., IPR2013-00067 (Aug. 10, 2016) (Paper 62).
Simultaneous briefing by the petitioner and the patent owner is common. See, e.g., Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00132 (June 3, 2016) (Paper 49) at 4 (“We are not persuaded that Petitioner should file its brief first and Patent Owner should respond because neither party is seeking relief from the Board, as would be the case when a motion and opposition are filed.”) But some panels stagger the briefing, with the petitioner filing an opening brief and the patent owner filing a response a week later. See, e.g., Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2013-00246 (Mar, 29, 2016) (Paper 68) at 2.
People still think it won't take 6 months? That is over 1 month already. If they allow for discovery, which they should in my opinion, that is not a short process either. If they still have to do the teleconferencing and such, thats another month before they even really get started.
