UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`BROSE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`and
`BROSE FAHRZEUGTEILE GMBH & CO. KG, HALLSTADT,
`Petitioners
`v.
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00416
`Patent No. 8,217,612
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`BROSE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`and
`BROSE FAHRZEUGTEILE GMBH & CO. KG, HALLSTADT,
`Petitioners
`v.
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00416
`Patent No. 8,217,612
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00416
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioners Brose North America, Inc. and
`
`Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kg, Hallstadt, hereby request oral argument.
`
`The oral argument is presently scheduled for April 30, 2015. (Paper 13).
`
`Brose requests that oral argument for this IPR be scheduled in connection
`
`with the oral argument for IPR2014-00417, for which Brose is filing a similar
`
`request for oral argument. The two IPRs, which address related patents, have been
`
`on the same schedule throughout the proceedings, and are presently both scheduled
`
`for oral argument on the same date, April 30, 2015.
`
`Brose also requests that oral argument for the two IPRs be combined into a
`
`single argument, thereby eliminating the need to twice address issues overlapping
`
`among the two IPRs. Brose requests that the combined arguments be scheduled
`
`for a total of three (3) hours, with 90 minutes per side. Patent owner UUSI does
`
`not oppose this requested format.
`
`Brose, as Petitioners, requests it be permitted to argue first. Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Brose would
`
`address both IPRs, followed by patent owner UUSI, with Brose having the right to
`
`reserve a portion of its allotted time for rebuttal.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00416
`
`The issues to be argued relating to IPR2014-00417 are identified in Brose’s
`
`request for argument submitted in that IPR. The issues to be argued relating to this
`
`IPR (2014-00416) include the following:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`1.
`The proper construction of claim 1: Whether limitations d(iii) and
`
`d(iv) require two different simultaneous (e.g., hard and soft) obstacle detection
`
`algorithms (as Patent Owner contends), or whether, instead, limitations (d)(i)-(iv)
`
`all refer to the same, single algorithm by which the controller recited in (d) senses
`
`a collision with an obstruction when power is applied to the controller (as Brose
`
`contends).
`
`2.
`
`The proper construction of the phrase “a sensing said window or panel
`
`has stopped moving” in claim 6: Whether the phrase requires sensing an abrupt
`
`stoppage (e.g., from a hard obstacle) (as Patent Owner contends), or whether,
`
`instead, the phrase is sufficiently broad to include sensing a stoppage in the form of
`
`a deceleration (e.g., from either a hard or soft obstacle) (as Brose contends).
`
`3.
`
`The proper construction of the phrase “acceptable travel range” in
`
`claim 6: Whether the phrase requires that the controller must be programmed with
`
`values representing both the fully-open and fully-closed position limits (as Patent
`
`Owner contends), or whether, instead, the phrase is sufficiently broad to include
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00416
`
`any range of acceptable travel, defined by any two programmed position limits (as
`
`Brose contends).
`
`4.
`
`The proper construction of claim 6: Whether claim 6 requires sensing
`
`a stoppage along the entirety of the travel range (as Patent Owner contends), or
`
`whether, instead, claim 6 merely requires such sensing at some position(s) along
`
`the travel path, but not everywhere along the entire travel path (as Brose contends).
`
`B. Unpatentability
`Patent Owner UUSI does not separately argue any of dependent claims 2, 7
`
`and 8. Thus, Brose submits (and UUSI does not dispute) that: (1) if independent
`
`claim 1 is canceled as unpatentable, dependent claim 2 should also be canceled as
`
`unpatentable; and (2) if independent claim 6 is canceled as unpatentable,
`
`dependent claims 7–8 should also be canceled as unpatentable. For this reason,
`
`Brose does not plan to focus on challenged dependent claims 2, 7 and 8 at the
`
`argument.
`
`Patent Owner UUSI also does not contest the mathematical equivalence
`
`and/or the obviousness of re-writing prior art reference Itoh’s equation, which is
`
`the only concept for which Brose relies on prior art reference Zuckerman.
`
`Accordingly, Ground 7 (obviousness over Itoh in view of Zuckerman) essentially
`
`overlaps with Ground 1 (obviousness over Itoh), and Ground 8 (obviousness over
`
`Itoh in view of prior art reference Kinzl and Zuckerman) essentially overlaps with
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00416
`
`Ground 3 (obviousness over Itoh in view of Kinzl). Therefore, Brose does not plan
`
`to focus on Grounds 7–8 at oral argument, but maintains that claims 1–2 and 5
`
`should also be cancelled based on Grounds 7 and 8, among other grounds.
`
`Accordingly, the Grounds and corresponding claims that Brose intends to
`
`focus on at the argument are listed below, and summarized in the chart further
`
`below:
`
`1.
`
`Unpatentability based primarily on prior art reference Itoh
`
`(1) Anticipation of Claims 1 and 6 by Itoh (Ground 2)
`
`(2) Obviousness of Claims 1, 5 and 6 over Itoh and the knowledge
`
`of one having ordinary skill in the art (Ground 1)
`
`(3) Obviousness of Claims 1, 5 and 6 over Itoh in view of Kinzl
`
`(Ground 3)
`
`2.
`
`Unpatentability based primarily on prior art reference Kinzl
`
`(1) Anticipation of Claim 6 by Kinzl (Ground 4)
`
`(2) Obviousness of Claim 6 over Kinzl and the knowledge of one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (Ground 5)
`
`(3) Obviousness of Claim 6 over Kinzl in view of Itoh (Ground 6)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00416
`
`C. Other Issues
`1.
`Procedural and evidentiary issues raised, e.g., in Motions to Exclude;
`
`2.
`
`Any additional issues the parties raise or propose to raise at or before
`
`
`
`the oral argument; and
`
`3.
`
`Any additional issues on which the Board seeks information or
`
`clarification.
`
`Brose further requests the use of audio-visual equipment to assist its
`
`arguments and to display its demonstrative exhibits, including a computer-
`
`connectable projector, an ELMO, and a screen.
`
`Brose requests the services of a court reporter to transcribe the proceeding.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Date: March 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00416
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Craig D. Leavell
`Craig D. Leavell (Reg. No. 48505)
`Luke L. Dauchot, P.C. (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: 312.862.2000; F: 312.862.2200
`craig.leavell@kirkland.com
`luke.dauchot@kirkland.com
`Attorneys For Petitioners
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that a copy of
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served on March 26,
`
`2015, via email by agreement of the parties, directed to counsel of record for the
`
`Patent Owner at the following:
`
`Monte L. Falcoff
`Michael R. Nye
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
`Troy, Michigan 48098
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`mnye@hdp.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Craig D. Leavell
`Craig Leavell (Reg. No. 48505)
`Luke L. Dauchot, P.C. (pro hac vice)
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
