Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: August 31, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED AUDIO DEVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`Petitioner, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”), and
`Patent Owner, Advanced Audio Devices, LLC (“AAD”), each requested oral
`hearings in these five related inter partes review trials, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: August 31, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED AUDIO DEVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`Petitioner, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”), and
`Patent Owner, Advanced Audio Devices, LLC (“AAD”), each requested oral
`hearings in these five related inter partes review trials, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`§ 42.70. Papers 26, 28.1 Upon consideration, the requests for oral hearing
`are granted. Oral argument shall commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on
`September 17, 2015, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`Because of the related nature of these cases, the Board exercises its
`discretion to consolidate the hearings. Each party will have two hours of
`total time to present arguments. A party may allot argument time among the
`five cases as it wishes, but cases should be argued separately and in
`sequence starting with case IPR2014-01154.
`HTC bears the ultimate burden of proof that AAD’s claims at issue in
`this review are unpatentable. Therefore, HTC will open the hearing by
`presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for which the Board
`instituted trial. In IPR2014-01154 and IPR2014-01157, however, AAD has
`filed a Motion to Amend Claims and bears the burden of proof with respect
`to that motion. After HTC’s presentation, therefore, AAD will respond to
`HTC’s argument and also argue in support of its Motions to Amend Claims.
`Each side may reserve time to respond to arguments presented by the
`other side. If HTC reserves rebuttal time, it may respond to AAD’s
`arguments in opposition on the original claims, as well as argue in
`opposition to the Motions to Amend Claims. To the extent that AAD
`reserves rebuttal time, it may respond only to HTC’s arguments opposing
`the Motions to Amend Claims.
`
`
`1 Citations are to the record in IPR2014-01154; similar requests may be
`found in the records of the related cases.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall
`constitute the official record of the hearing. Motions to seal have been
`granted in these proceedings, relating to Exhibits 2004 and 2008. We note,
`however, that a redacted, public version of Exhibit 2004 has been filed.
`Furthermore, neither party has moved to seal any substantive brief on the
`ground that any argument therein contains confidential information; nor has
`either party requested that the oral hearing be closed to the public.
`Accordingly, the Board concludes that the parties are capable of presenting
`their arguments in this case without discussing confidential information, and
`exercises its discretion to make the oral hearing publically available. The
`hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that will be
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits shall be
`served on opposing counsel at least five business days before the hearing,
`and filed with the Board no later than the time of 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.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections
`cannot be resolved, the parties may file any objections to demonstratives
`with the Board at least two business days before the hearing. The objections
`should identify with particularity which portions of the demonstrative
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`
`exhibits are subject to objection, include a copy of the objected-to portions,
`and include a one-sentence statement of the reason for each objection. No
`argument or further explanation is permitted. The Board will consider any
`objections and schedule a conference call if deemed necessary. Otherwise,
`the Board will reserve ruling on the objections. Any objection to
`demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered
`waived.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. Any counsel of record, however, 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.
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov.
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is:
`ORDERED that oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the procedures outlined
`above, shall commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on September 17, 2015.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01154 (Patent 6,587,403 B1)
`IPR2014-01155 (Patent 7,289,393 B2)
`IPR2014-01156 (Patent 7,817,502 B2)
`IPR2014-01157 (Patent 7,933,171 B2)
`IPR2014-01158 (Patent 8,400,888 B2)
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Bing Ai
`Hwa C. Lee
`Thomas N. Millikan
`Matthew Bernstein
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`HLee@perkinscoie.com
`TMillikan@perkinscoie.com
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Foley
`Timothy M. McCarthy
`John Paniaguas
`CLARK HILL PLC
`jfoley@clarkhill.com
`tmccarthy@clarkhill.com
`jpaniaguas@clarkhill.com
`
`5
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
