`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
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
