`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 47
`
`Entered: October 02, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`This covered business method patent review was instituted on March 28,
`
`2013. Paper 10. Oral argument date initially was set for October 28, 2013 ( Paper
`11), but subsequently reset to October 15, 2013. Paper 31.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`In a related proceeding on the same involved patent and between the same
`
`parties, CBM2012-00003, oral argument also has been set for October 15, 2013.
`Paper 45.
`
`Both parties have requested oral argument. Papers 41, 46. The requests are
`granted.
`
`The oral arguments for CBM2012-00003 and for CBM2013-00009 will be
`merged and conducted at the same time, i.e., not in seriatim. Each party will have
`one hour of total oral argument time for both proceedings.
`
`Petitioner (“Liberty Mutual”) bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent
`Owner (“Progressive”)’s claims at issue in CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009
`are unpatentable. Therefore, at oral hearing Liberty Mutual will proceed first to
`present its case with regard to the challenged claims and grounds for which the
`Board instituted trial in CBM2012-00003 and in CBM2013-00009.
`
`Thereafter, Progressive will respond to Liberty Mutual’s case in both
`CBM2012-00003 and CBM2013-00009. After that, Liberty Mutual will make use
`of the remainder of its time addressing Progressive’s responsive presentation.
`
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM on October 15, 2013, and it will be
`open to the public for in-person attendance on the ninth floor of Madison Building
`east, 600 Dulaney Street, Alexandria, Virginia. In-person attendance will be
`accommodated on a first come/first serve basis.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served five
`
`business days before the hearing. They shall be filed with the Board three business
`days prior to the hearing, and the parties must initiate a conference call with the
`Board at least two business days prior to the hearing to resolve any dispute over the
`propriety of each party’s demonstrative exhibits.
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at oral hearing,
`although any backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in whole or in part.
`If lead counsel for either party will not be in attendance at oral argument, the
`Board should be notified via a joint telephone conference call no later than two
`business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00009
`Patent 8,140,358
`
`For PETITIONER
`J. Steven Baughman
`Nicole M. Jantzi
`Ropes & Gray
`Email: steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`Email: Nicole.jantzi@ropesgray.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`
`Calvin P. Griffith
`James L. Wamsley, III
`John V. Biernacki
`Jones Day
`Email: cpgriffith@jonesday.com
`Email: jlwamsleyiii@jonesday.com
`Email: jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
