`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 44
`Entered: April 30, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY and
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-005801
`IPR2014-007262
`Patent 6,896,773 B2 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Requests for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`1 IPR2014-01479 has been joined with IPR2014-00580.
`2 IPR2014-01481 has been joined with IPR2014-00726.
`3 This Order sets forth the same information for both of the above-identified cases.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be entered in both cases. The parties, however,
`are not authorized to use this style of heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`The Scheduling Orders (IPR2014-00580, Paper 12; IPR2014-00726, Paper
`
`9) for these proceedings provided that an oral hearing would be conducted if the
`
`hearing is requested by the parties and granted by the Board. Petitioner requests
`
`oral hearings pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. IPR2014-00580, Paper 42; IPR2014-
`
`00726, Paper 36. The requests are granted.
`
`The proceedings are related, and both proceedings will be conducted as a
`
`single consolidated hearing, such that any representation made by counsel at the
`
`consolidated hearing is applicable to and useable in each proceeding that has an
`
`underlying basis for the representation. Each side will have sixty (60) minutes of
`
`total time to present argument for both of the proceedings. Petitioner bears the
`
`ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at issue are unpatentable.
`
`Thus, Petitioner will open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the
`
`challenged claims for which we instituted trial. Petitioner may reserve some of its
`
`argument time for rebuttal. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s
`
`presentation.
`
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2015, on the ninth floor
`
`of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The Board
`
`will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the reporter’s transcript will
`
`constitute the official record of the hearing and will be entered in the record of each
`
`proceeding. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that
`
`will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`
`Furthermore, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be
`
`served at least five business days before the hearing date. Barring any objections to
`
`the demonstratives by the opposing party, the parties are authorized to file any
`
`demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding in PRPS three business days prior to the
`
`oral hearing date. The parties also should note that one or more members of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`panel will be attending the hearing electronically from a remote location and will
`
`not be able to view the projection screen in the hearing room. The parties are
`
`reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each
`
`demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the
`
`hearing to avoid confusion, and to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s
`
`transcript.
`
`If there are objections to the demonstratives, the party raising the objections
`
`must communicate those objections via email to Trials@uspto.gov. Any objection
`
`to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will be considered waived.
`
`The objections should identify with particularity which demonstratives are subject
`
`to objection and include a short (one sentence or less) statement of the reason for
`
`each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted. The Board will
`
`consider the objections and schedule a conference if deemed necessary.
`
`Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the objections until at or after the oral
`
`argument. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc.
`
`v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041
`
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of
`
`demonstrative exhibits. See also CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118) (The Board
`
`has the discretion to limit the parties’ demonstratives to pages in the record should
`
`there be no easy resolution to objections over demonstratives.).
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person at the
`
`oral hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s argument. If
`
`either party expects that its lead counsel will not be attending the oral argument, the
`
`parties should initiate a joint telephone conference with the Board no later than two
`
`business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`Any special requests for audiovisual equipment should be directed to
`
`Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be honored unless
`
`presented in a separate communication not less than five days before the hearing,
`
`directed to the above email address.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00580, IPR2014-00726
`Patent 6,896,773 B2
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce J. Barker
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`
`Gillette:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Andrej. Barbic
`Andrej.barbic@wilmerhale.com
`
`Fujitsu:
`
`David L. McCombs
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`David M O’Dell
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Richard C. Kim
`rckim@duanemorris.com