IPR2013-00509
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 6,451,300
`Case No. IPR2013-00509
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 6,451,300
`Case No. IPR2013-00509
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`
`On February 12, 2014, the Board entered a Decision to Institute a trial in the
`
`following proceedings: IPR2013-00505 (Paper 9) and IPR2013-00509 (Paper 10).
`
`The two proceedings involve patents covering related subject matter and similar
`
`asserted prior art. A Scheduling Order issued in each case set the date for oral
`
`argument, if requested, as November 7, 2014.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Board’s Orders entered on
`
`May 28, 2014 (IPR2013-00505, Paper 21; IPR2013-00509, Paper 24), Petitioner,
`
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever (“Petitioner”), respectfully requests the opportunity to
`
`present oral argument as scheduled for November 7, 2014. In order to promote
`
`efficiency and the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the proceedings,
`
`Petitioner requests a merged oral hearing covering both Case Nos. IPR2013-00505
`
`and IPR2013-00509. It is Petitioner’s understanding that Patent Owner also agrees
`
`to a merged oral hearing for these two cases, although Patent Owner will propose
`
`less time for argument than Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner requests 90 minutes to address all issues raised in the parties’
`
`filings in both matters, including but not limited to the following:
`
`
`
`Whether claims 1-12, 15, 17-19, 23, 26, 28-30, and 32 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,974,569 (“the ’569 patent”) are patentable over the asserted art
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`and grounds of unpatentability upon which inter partes review has
`
`been instituted in Case No. IPR2013-00505.
`
`
`
`Whether claims 1-5, 11-13, 16-20, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,451,300 (“the ’300 patent”) are patentable over the asserted art and
`
`grounds of unpatentability upon which inter partes review has been
`
`instituted in Case No. IPR2013-00509.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any issues specified by any request for oral argument submitted by
`
`Patent Owner The Proctor & Gamble Company (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Whether any pending motions filed by Petitioner or Patent Owner in
`
`either case should be granted or denied.
`
`Any other issues the Board deems necessary for issuing a final written
`
`decision.
`
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at
`
`issue in Case Nos. IPR2013-00505 and IPR2013-00509 are unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner therefore further requests that the oral argument be structured as follows:
`
`Petitioner will open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged
`
`claims for which the Board instituted trial for these two proceedings. After
`
`Petitioner’s presentation, Patent Owner will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s
`
`case in both proceedings. Petitioner may then use any time it reserved to rebut
`
`Patent Owner’s opposition in both proceedings.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`The oral argument structure set forth above has been utilized by the Board in
`
`similar circumstances involving a merged oral hearing of two proceedings. See,
`
`e.g., Intel Corp. v. FuzzySharp Techs., Inc., IPR2014-00001 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014,
`
`Paper 21), IPR2014-00002 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014, Paper 21).
`
`Petitioner further requests that the Board provide audio/visual equipment to
`
`display demonstrative exhibits, including the use of a projector and screen for
`
`displaying documents.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`
`
`Dated: October 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph P. Meara/
`
`Joseph P. Meara (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 44,932
`Foley & Lardner, LLP
`150 E. Gilman Street
`Suite 5000
`Madison, Wisconsin 53703
`Telephone: (608) 257-5035
`Facsimile:
`(608) 258-4258
`jmeara@foley.com
`
`Jeanne M. Gills (Back-up Counsel)
`Registration No. 44,458
`Michael R. Houston (Back-up
`Counsel)
`Registration No. 58,486
`Foley & Lardner, LLP
`321 N. Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: (312) 832-4500
`Facsimile:
`(312) 832-4700
`jmgills@foley.com
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT is being served by
`
`electronic mail October 3, 2014 on counsel for Patent Owner as follows:
`
`David M. Maiorana
`John V. Biernacki
`Michael S. Weinstein
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114
`Telephone (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile (216) 579-0212
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`msweinstein@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Dated: October 3, 2014
`
`Steven W. Miller
`Kim W. Zerby
`Carl J. Roof
`Angela K. Haughey
`THE PROCTOR &
`GAMBLE COMPANY
`299 E. Sixth Street
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`Telephone (513) 983-1246
`Facsimile (513) 945-2729
`miller.sw@pg.com
`zerby.kw@pg.com
`roof.cj@pg.com
`haughey.a@pg.com
`
`/Joseph P. Meara/
`By:
`Joseph P. Meara
`Registration No. 44,932
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
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
