Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 10 IPR2014-00788 Paper 32
`
`571-272-7822
`IPR2014-00789 Paper 31
`IPR2014-00790 Paper 37
`IPR2014-00791 Paper 44
`Date Entered: June 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EASTMAN KODAK CO., AGFA CORP., ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and
`HEIDELBERG, USA,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00788
`Case IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`
`Case IPR2014-00790
`Cases IPR2014-00791
`Patent 6,611,349 B11
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2014-00788, IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`Cases IPR2014-00790, IPR2014-00791
`Patent 6,611,349 B1
`
`
`Upon institution of a trial in each of the subject proceedings, we entered a
`
`Scheduling Order setting the date for oral hearing to June 30, 2015, if hearing is
`
`requested by the parties and granted by the Board. In each proceeding, both parties
`
`requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. The requests are granted.
`
`We will conduct a consolidated hearing to address all matters in the subject
`
`proceedings. Each party will have 90 minutes of total argument time. Eastman
`
`Kodak Company, Agfa Corporation, Esko Software BVBA, and Heidelberg, USA
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at
`
`issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, at oral hearing Petitioner will
`
`proceed first to present its case with regard to the challenged claims on which basis
`
`we instituted trial. Thereafter, CTP Innovations, LLC (“Patent Owner”) will argue
`
`its opposition to Petitioner’s case. Patent Owner will also present its own case
`
`with regard to its motions to exclude, as Patent Owner bears the burden of proof on
`
`those motions. Petitioner may then use any time Petitioner reserved to rebut to
`
`Patent Owner’s opposition and to oppose Patent Owner’s motions to exclude.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner may use any time it reserved solely to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`opposition to Patent Owner’s motions to exclude.
`
`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 public. This policy is reflected in
`
`part, for example, in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) and 35 U.S. C. § 326(a)(1) which
`
`provide that the file of any inter partes review or post grant 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2014-00788, IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`Cases IPR2014-00790, IPR2014-00791
`Patent 6,611,349 B1
`
`the subject proceedings. Accordingly, the Board exercises its discretion to make
`
`the oral hearing publically available via in-person attendance.
`
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 1:00 PM, on June 30, 2015 on
`
`the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
`
`and it will be open to the public for in-person attendance. In-person attendance
`
`will be accommodated on a first come first serve basis.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the reporter’s
`
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. 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 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. A courtesy copy of the demonstratives to be used at the
`
`hearing 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 5 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2014-00788, IPR2014-00789
`Patent 6,738,155 B1
`Cases IPR2014-00790, IPR2014-00791
`Patent 6,611,349 B1
`
`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
`
`oral hearing. However, lead or backup counsel may present the party’s argument.
`
`If either party anticipates 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.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Scott McKeown
`CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`
`Michael Kiklis
`CPDocketKiklis@oblon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Edward Ramage
`eramage@bakerdonelson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`