`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 43
`Entered: January 23, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., AND
`MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TROY R. NORRED, M.D.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2014-00110, -00111, -00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`On January 23, 2015, a conference call was conducted in these
`
`proceedings before APJs Weatherly and Snedden to address objections
`
`raised by Patent Owner to Petitioner’s demonstrative exhibits. Patent Owner
`
`requested the call via an email to the Board during the afternoon of January
`
`22, 2015. Messrs. Kernell and Marcus represented Patent Owner and Mr.
`
`Barufka represented Petitioner. Minutes before the conference call, Patent
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00110, -00111, and -00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`Owner provided to us and counsel for Petitioner a summary of its objections
`
`indicating that it objected to 73 of 106 slides in Petitioner’s demonstrative
`
`exhibits. Petitioner had no objections to Patent Owner’s demonstrative
`
`exhibits.
`
`We asked Patent Owner to present its single best objection from
`
`among the 73 presented in its summary. In response, Patent Owner argued
`
`that the title on slide number 7 of Petitioner’s exhibits mischaracterized the
`
`testimony quoted below the title. We overruled Patent Owner’s objection
`
`and informed the parties that the panel would give no evidentiary weight to
`
`argumentative characterizations of evidence such as those that appear in the
`
`title of any slide.
`
`We declined to hear argument during the conference call in
`
`connection with Patent Owner’s remaining objections. We instruct the
`
`parties to resolve between themselves any remaining objections in advance
`
`of the hearing. We will permit Patent Owner to raise at the outset of the
`
`hearing any remaining objections to the demonstrative exhibits, and we will
`
`rule upon those objections before the start of the argument. However, the
`
`time associated with hearing and ruling upon such objections will be charged
`
`to the Patent Owner.
`
`We reminded the parties that the oral hearing is limited to “argument
`
`on an issue raised in a paper” and is not a vehicle for introducing new
`
`argument or evidence to the proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a); see also
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral
`
`argument.”). We also advise the parties that, at the oral hearing, we will
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00110, -00111, and -00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`either stop a party who advances new evidence or arguments or disregard
`
`that new evidence or argument in rendering our final decision.
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
`
`Patent Owner’s objections to slide no. 7 in the demonstrative exhibits
`
`served by Petitioner are overruled;
`
`Patent Owner may present argument at the start of the oral hearing
`
`relating to any unresolved objections presented via e-mail on January 23,
`
`2015, with the time required to address each objection charged to the Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00110, -00111, and -00395
`Patent 6,482,228 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jack Barufka
`Evan Finkel
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`jack.barufka@pillsburylaw.com
`evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James J. Kernell
`ERICKSON KERNELL DERUSSEAU & KLEYPAS, LLC
`jjk@kcpatentlaw.com
`
`David L. Marcus
`BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
`dmarcus@bmlawkc.com
`
`4
`
`