throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 51, IPR2014-00594; Paper 45, IPR2014-00600;
`571.272.7822 Paper 51, IPR2014-00601; Paper 51, IPR2014-00602;
` Paper 57, IPR2014-00603
` Entered: June 4, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY and BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEHICLE OPERATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00594 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`Case IPR2014-00600 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`Case IPR2014-00601 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`Case IPR2014-00602 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`Case IPR2014-00603 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`1 This decision addresses issues that are identical in the five cases. The
`parties are not authorized to use this heading style in their papers.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00594 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00600 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00601 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00602 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00603 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`
`
`A trial in each of these proceedings was instituted on October 15,
`2014. Paper 26.2 A Revised Scheduling Order was issued on December 17,
`2014, which set July 8, 2015, as the date for an oral hearing, if a hearing is
`requested by the parties and granted by the Board. Paper 35. Both parties
`have requested an oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. See, e.g.,
`Papers 47, 48. The parties’ requests are granted.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner will each have 180 minutes of total
`argument time. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims
`at issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, at the hearing, Petitioner
`will proceed first to present its case in IPR2014-00594 with regard to the
`challenged claims on which basis we instituted trial. Thereafter, Patent
`Owner will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case. After that, to the extent
`Petitioner reserves rebuttal time, Petitioner may make use of its rebuttal time
`responding to Patent Owner. Thereafter, Petitioner will present its case,
`Patent Owner will present its opposition, and Petitioner may present any
`rebuttal to the other four proceedings, identified in the above caption, in the
`following order: IPR2014-00601, IPR2014-00602, IPR2014-00603, and
`IPR2014-00600. There are no motions to amend or other motions to be
`addressed at the hearing.
`There is a strong public policy interest in making all information
`presented in these proceedings public, as the review determines the
`patentability of claims in an issued patent and, thus, affects the rights of the
`
`
`2 For ease of reference, the papers and exhibits cited herein refer to those
`filed in IPR2014-00594, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00594 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00600 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00601 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00602 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00603 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`
`public. This policy is reflected in part, for example, in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(a)(1), which provides that the file of any inter partes review be made
`available to the public, except that any petition or document filed with the
`intent that it be sealed shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated
`as sealed pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion. There are no
`motions to seal in the present proceeding. Accordingly, the Board exercises
`its discretion to make the oral hearing publically available via in-person
`attendance.
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 9:00AM EDT, on July 8,
`2015, and it will be open to the public for in-person attendance, on the Ninth
`Floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulaney Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`In-person attendance will be accommodated on a first-come, first-serve
`basis. If each party uses all of its allotted time, we anticipate morning and
`afternoon breaks as well as a lunch break.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Demonstratives are aids in support of oral argument, but are not
`considered evidence. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits
`must be served five business days before the hearing. The parties are
`directed to CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2013-00033, Paper 118 (Oct. 23, 2013), regarding the appropriate
`content of demonstrative exhibits. Any issue regarding demonstrative
`exhibits should be resolved at least two days prior to the hearing by way of a
`joint telephone conference call to the Board. The parties are responsible for
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00594 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00600 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00601 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00602 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00603 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`
`requesting such a conference sufficiently in advance of the hearing to
`accommodate this requirement. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits
`that is not timely presented will be considered waived. Demonstratives
`should be filed at the Board no later than two days before the hearing.
`A hard copy of the demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter
`at the hearing.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment are to be made five days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`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 ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`reporter’s transcript.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the hearing. Lead or backup counsel, however, may present the party’s
`argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the hearing, that party should initiate a joint telephone conference
`with the other party and the Board no later than two business days prior to
`the hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00594 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00600 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00601 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00602 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00603 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John M. Caracappa
`Stephanie L. Roberts
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`jcaracap@steptoe.com
`sroberts@steptoe.com
`
`Eric A. Buresh
`Jason R. Mudd
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`Reginald J. Hill
`Chad J. Ray
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`rhill@jenner.com
`cray@jenner.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory Howison
`HOWISON & ARNOTT
`GHowison@dalpat.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00594 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00600 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00601 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00602 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`IPR2014-00603 (Patent 7,145,442 B1)
`
`Monica Tavakoli
`James Arnott
`BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
`Monica.Tavakoli@BJCIPlaw.com
`James.Arnott@BJCIPlaw.com
`
`6

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket