throbber
Filed: September 26, 2014
`
`Filed on behalf of: Software Rights Archive, LLC Paper ____
`
`By: Martin M. Zoltick, Lead Counsel
`Nancy J. Linck, Back-up Counsel
`Soumya P. Panda, Back-up Counsel
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`607 14th St., N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`E-mail: mzoltick@rfem.com
` nlinck@rfem.com
` spanda@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases
`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Pursuant to the Scheduling Orders, dated February 3, 2014 (IPR2013-00478,
`
`Paper 18; IPR2013-00479, Paper 19; IPR2013-00480, Paper 18; and IPR2013-
`
`00481, Paper 17), Patent Owner Software Rights Archive, LLC (“SRA”)
`
`respectfully requests oral argument for the trials currently scheduled to be held on
`
`October 30, 2014. SRA requests three (3) hours per side of oral argument.
`
`SRA requests three hours per side because the issues and the disclosures are
`
`unusually complex and voluminous. Furthermore, Petitioners submitted a Reply
`
`Declaration consisting of 266 pages of new expert testimony, raising a number of
`
`arguments, evidence and points for the first time. SRA has not had an opportunity
`
`to respond and needs its full time at the hearing to address these arguments. SRA
`
`anticipates that it will use approximately the first 45 minutes of its time to present a
`
`power point directed to the issues presented by the expert testimony and reserve
`
`the remaining time for questions and additional presentations.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), SRA identifies the following issues as
`
`among those to be argued:
`
`1. IPR2013-00478 (U.S. Patent No. 5,544,352):
`
`a. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Fox Thesis and Fox SMART render obvious claims 26, 28-30, 32,
`
`34, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,352 (Institution Decision Ground
`
`1);
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`b. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Kambayashi anticipates claims 26, 29-30, 32, 34, and 39 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,544,352 (Institution Decision Ground 2); and
`
`c. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Tapper 1976 and Tapper 1982 render obvious claims 26, 28-30,
`
`34, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,352 (Institution Decision Ground
`
`3).
`
`2. IPR2013-00479 (of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494):
`
`a. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox Collection render obvious
`
`claims 18-20, 48, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494 (Institution
`
`Decision Ground 1);
`
`
`
`b. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Tapper 1976 and Tapper 1982 render obvious claims 18-20, 48,
`
`and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494 (Institution Decision Ground 2);
`
`c. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, Fox Collection, Saito Clustering, and
`
`Fox Envision render obvious claims 45 and 51 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,832,494 (Institution Decision Ground 3); and
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`d. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, Fox Collection, Saito Clustering, Fox
`
`Envision, and Little render obvious claim 54 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,832,494 (Institution Decision Ground 4).
`
`3. IPR2013-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494):
`
`a. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Fox Thesis anticipates claims 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`(Institution Decision Ground 1); and
`
`b. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Fox SMART anticipates claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,832,494 (Institution Decision Ground 2).
`
`
`
`4. IPR2013-00481 (U.S. Patent No. 6,233,571):
`
`a. Whether Petitioners have met their burden on the instituted ground
`
`that Fox Thesis, Fox SMART, and Fox Envision render obvious
`
`claims 12, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,571 (Institution
`
`Decision Ground 1).
`
`5. SRA requests three hours per side because the issues and the disclosures are
`
`unusually complex and voluminous. Furthermore, Petitioners submitted a
`
`Reply Declaration consisting of 266 pages of new expert testimony, raising a
`
`number of arguments, evidence and points for the first time. SRA has not
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`had an opportunity to respond and needs its full time at the hearing to
`
`address these arguments. SRA anticipates that it will use approximately the
`
`first 45 minutes of its time to present a power point directed to the issues
`
`presented by the expert testimony and reserve the remaining time for
`
`questions and additional presentations.
`
`6. Any other issues raised in the Petitions, Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Responses, Patent Owner’s Responses, Petitioner’s Replies, Petitioner’s
`
`Request for Oral Argument, or otherwise raised by the Patent Owner,
`
`Petitioner, or the Board.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner requests the ability to use audio/visual equipment to display
`
`demonstrative exhibits and evidence of record, including the use of a projector,
`
`ELMO device, and screen for PowerPoint and other visual display. 
`
`
`
`Date: September 26, 2014
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Martin M. Zoltick
`Martin M. Zoltick, Reg. No. 35,745
`Nancy J. Linck, Reg. No. 31,920
`Soumya P. Panda, Reg. No. 60,447
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Software Rights Archive, LLC
`
`5 
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 26th day of September, 2014, a true and correct
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`
`
`
`
`copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`was served by electronic mail, upon the following lead, backup and pro hac vice
`
`counsel of record for Petitioners Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe – Lead Counsel for all Petitioners
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Ph: 650-843-5001
`Fx: 650-849-7400
`E-mails: hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`Mark R. Weinstein – Backup Counsel for Facebook, Inc.
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Ph: 650-843-5007
`Fx: 650-849-7400
`E-mail: mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`David Silbert – Backup Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: djs@kvn.com
`
`Asim M. Bhansali – Pro Hac Vice Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: abhansali@kvn.com
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`Sharif E. Jacobs – Pro Hac Vice Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: sjacob@kvn.com
`
`David J. Silbert – Pro Hac Vice Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: dsilbert@kvn.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Erik van Leeuwen
`Erik van Leeuwen
`Litigation Operations Coordinator
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket