Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;1
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-011812
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`____________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Modifying Scheduling Order and
`Granting the Parties’ Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 On January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, an
`originally-named Petitioner in this case, was merged into Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc. See IPR2014-01181, Paper 9.
`2 On March 24, 2015, we consolidated IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184
`with IPR2014-01181. IPR2014-01181, Paper 15, 2.
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;1
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-011812
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`____________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Modifying Scheduling Order and
`Granting the Parties’ Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 On January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, an
`originally-named Petitioner in this case, was merged into Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc. See IPR2014-01181, Paper 9.
`2 On March 24, 2015, we consolidated IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184
`with IPR2014-01181. IPR2014-01181, Paper 15, 2.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`On September 21, 2015, a telephone conference was held between
`
`respective counsel for the parties and Judges Turner, Pettigrew, and
`
`Tornquist. Counsel for Patent Owner requested the conference call to seek
`
`modification of the current Scheduling Order (Paper 11) in order to
`
`accommodate the deposition of Petitioner’s declarant.
`
`Scheduling Order
`
`
`
`On the call, we granted Patent Owner’s request to modify Due Dates
`
`4, 5, and 6 of the Scheduling Order, as agreed to by the parties on the call, as
`
`follows: Due Date 4 is now October 6; Due Date 5 is now October 13; and
`
`Due Date 6 is now October 20. In view of the modification to Due Date 6,
`
`service of demonstrative exhibits, and the filing of any objections thereto,
`
`shall be in accordance with the deadlines set forth below.
`
`Oral Argument
`
`
`
`On the call, both parties indicated they intend to request oral
`
`argument. We deem this to be a request for oral argument pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.70, which we grant.
`
`
`
`Oral argument shall commence at 2:00 PM Eastern Time on October
`
`28, 2015, on the 9th floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Each side will have ninety (90) minutes to present argument.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. The
`
`hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that will be
`
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. If the parties have any
`
`concern about disclosing confidential information, they are requested to
`
`contact the Board at least 5 days in advance of the hearing to discuss the
`
`matter.
`
`
`
`The parties are reminded that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(7), a
`
`proponent of deposition testimony must file such testimony as an exhibit.
`
`The Board will not consider any deposition testimony that has not been so
`
`filed.
`
`
`
`Demonstrative exhibits are to be served by October 23, 2015. The
`
`parties shall provide a courtesy copy of any demonstrative exhibits to the
`
`Board on or before October 23, 2015 by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`
`The parties also should note that one or more members of the panel will be
`
`attending the hearing electronically from a remote location by use of two-
`
`way audiovisual communication equipment and will not be able to view the
`
`projection screen in the hearing room. If a demonstrative exhibit is not filed
`
`before the hearing or otherwise made available to the judge presiding over
`
`the hearing remotely, that demonstrative exhibit will not be considered.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 on or before October 26, 2015. Any objection to demonstrative
`
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived. The
`
`objections should identify with particularity which demonstratives are
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`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 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, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB January 27, 2014) (Paper
`
`65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`
`exhibits.
`
`
`
`No live testimony from any witness will be taken at the oral argument.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is:
`
`ORDERED that the current Scheduling Order (Paper 11) is hereby
`
`modified as follows: Due Date 4 is now October 6; Due Date 5 is now
`
`October 13; and Due Date 6 is now October 20; and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the
`
`procedures outlined above, shall commence at 2:00 PM Eastern Time on
`
`October 28, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Kathryn N. Hong
`Kathryn.Hong@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI LLP
`rmschultz@rkmc.com
`
`Thomas R. DeSimone
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI LLP
`trdesimone@rkmc.com
`
`
`
`
`6
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
