Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00004, Paper No. 45
`IPR2013-00007, Paper No. 44
`Date Entered: December 19, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00004
`Case IPR2013-00257
`Patent 7,831,926
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00004 & IPR2013-00257; IPR2013-00007 & IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,831,926; 7,461,353
`
`IPR2013-00004 and IPR2013-00007 were instituted on March 29, 2013.
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 12, and IPR2013-00007, Paper 12. IPR2013-00257 and
`IPR2013-00256 were subsequently joined with IPR2013-00004 and IPR2013-
`00007, respectively. For convenience, the joined proceedings are referred to
`herein as IPR2013-00004 and IPR-00007. A Scheduling Order, issued in
`IPR2013-00004 and IPR2013-00007 on March 29, 2013, set the date for oral
`hearing to January 7, 2014, if hearing is requested by the parties and granted by the
`Board. IPR2013-00004, Paper 13, and IPR2013-00007, Paper 13. The parties have
`each filed a request for an oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.70. IPR2013-
`00004, Papers 40, 41, and IPR2013-00007, Papers 39, 40. The requests are
`granted and the hearings will be conducted together.
`In both cases, Patent Owner, Softview LLC, requested that the arguments at
`the hearing address the proper construction of the claim term “preserving the
`original page layout, functionality and design,” and the exclusion of Petitioner’s
`Reply and evidence, raised in a Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. IPR2013-
`00004, Paper 42, and IPR2013-00007, Paper 41. In IPR2013-00004, Patent Owner
`also requested that the Board hear arguments concerning the patentability of claims
`30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, and 75, of U.S. Patent 7,831,926. IPR2013-
`00004, Paper 42. In IPR2013-00007, Patent Owner also requested the Board hear
`argument on the patentability of claims 1, 33 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 66, 118,
`138, 139, 149, 183, 252, 283 and 317, of U.S. Patent 7,461,353. IPR2013-00007,
`Paper 41.
`Petitioners, Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility, Inc., jointly
`requested oral hearing on unpatentability of claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59,
`72, and 75 of the ´926 Patent and claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 66, 118,
`138, 139, 149, 183, 252, 283, and 317 of the ´353 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00004 & IPR2013-00257; IPR2013-00007 & IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,831,926; 7,461,353
`and associated issues, including the claim construction issues briefed pursuant to
`our Order. IPR2013-00004, Paper 40 and IPR2013-00007, Paper 39.
`The Board will hear argument on all challenges on which the trial has been
`instituted and on all issues and motions that have not been decided by the Board at
`the time of the hearing in both IPR2013-00004 and IPR-00007.
`Each party will have 90 minutes of total argument time. Petitioners bear the
`ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at issue in these reviews are
`unpatentable. Therefore, at oral hearing Petitioners will proceed first to present
`their case with regard to the challenged claims on which basis the Board instituted
`trial in IPR2013-00004 and IPR2013-00007 and on any outstanding claim
`construction issues. Thereafter, Patent Owner, who has not moved to amend any
`claims, will respond to Petitioners’ case and present argument concerning its
`Motion to Exclude. After that, Petitioner will make use of the rest of its time
`responding to Patent Owner on all issues. Finally, Patent Owner may respond to
`Petitioners, but only concerning Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`There is a strong public policy interest in making all information presented
`in these proceedings public, as the review determines the patentability of claims in
`an issued patent and thus affects the rights of the public. This policy is reflected in
`part, for example, in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) and 35 U.S. C. § 326(a)(1) which
`provide that the file of any inter partes review or post grant review be made
`available to the public, except that any petition or document filed with the intent
`that it be sealed shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed
`pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion.
`Accordingly, the Board exercises its discretion to make the oral hearing
`publically available via in-person attendance.
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 9:00 AM, on January 7, 2014,
`and it will be open to the public for in-person attendance, on the ninth floor of
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00004 & IPR2013-00257; IPR2013-00007 & IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,831,926; 7,461,353
`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. Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served five business days before the
`hearing and filed at the Board no later than the time of the hearing. Any issue
`regarding demonstrative exhibits should be resolved prior to the hearing by way of
`a joint telephone conference call to the Board.
`
`
`PETITIONER KYOCERA: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Richard P. Bauer (richard.bauer@kattenlaw.com)
`Michael Tomsa (michael.tomsa@kattenlaw.com)
`Eric C. Cohen (eric.cohen@kattenlaw.com)
`
`PETITIONER MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`
`John C. Alemanni (jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`Candice C. Decaire (CDecaire@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`David A. Reed (DaReed@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`
`Ben Yorks (byorks@irell.com)
`Babak Redjaian (bredjaian@irell.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`