UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`and ORACLE CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-014631
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR
`ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00854 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`and ORACLE CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-014631
`Patent 7,934,041 B2
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR
`ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00854 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Request for Argument and Specified Issues
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests oral argument on the currently
`
`scheduled date of October 30, 2015 to address the following issues:
`
`(i)
`
`The appropriate construction of the claims, including terms related
`
`to the “map” and “control[ling] access;
`
`(ii) Petitioners have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`the unpatentability of any challenged claim on the grounds upon
`
`which trial has been instituted, specifically:
`
`a. Claims 1–14, 16–33, 35–50, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
`
`obviousness over CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal; and
`
`b. Claims 15, 34, 51, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
`
`obviousness over CRD-5500 Manual, HP Journal, and Fibre
`
`Channel Standard;
`
`(iii) Objective evidence of non-obviousness shows that the challenged
`
`claims are not unpatentable;
`
`(iv) Petitioners’ and Patent Owner’s respective motions to exclude,
`
`responses, and replies;
`
`(v) All other issues raised in any papers filed in this proceeding to the
`
`extent relevant to the Board’s determination of patentability.
`
`Patent Owner requests permission to use audio/visual equipment to display
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`demonstrative exhibits, including a projector and screen for presentation of
`
`slides.
`
`II. Proposed Structure for Oral Arguments in All Related Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner proposes two alternatives for the Board’s consideration.
`
`First Proposal: All CRD-5500 Related Grounds Argued Together
`
`Regarding the structure of the argument, Patent Owner notes that this is
`
`one of six related proceedings scheduled for oral argument on October 30,
`
`specifically, IPR 2014-01197, -01207, -01209, -01226, -01463, and -01544.
`
`Because all of these proceedings raise related issues regarding the same
`
`challenged patents and include related grounds, Patent Owner addresses the
`
`appropriate structure of all of these proceedings together.
`
`Proceedings IPR2014-01226, -01463, and -01544 (the “Cisco/Quantum
`
`Proceedings”), originally brought by Petitioners Cisco and Quantum, share a
`
`single primary reference on all instituted grounds: the CRD-5500 Instruction
`
`Manual. Accordingly, Patent Owner agrees with those Petitioners that oral
`
`argument related to the CRD-5500 grounds should occur in the morning of
`
`October 30, and that Petitioners Cisco/Quantum and Patent Owner each be
`
`allotted one hour for arguments as to these grounds.
`
`Oracle and Netapp, Petitioners in the -1197, -1207, and -1209 proceedings
`
`(the “Oracle/Netapp Proceedings”), request that these three proceedings be
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`consolidated for argument in the afternoon. IPR2014-01207 is the only one of
`
`these proceedings that includes the CRD-5500 Instruction Manual as a reference,
`
`and only as to one ground. Given that all Petitioners’ arguments regarding these
`
`grounds are similar, it would be more efficient and fair to argue the CRD-5500
`
`related grounds in the -1207 proceeding together with the Cisco/Quantum
`
`Proceedings in the morning. Doing so will keep all arguments related to the
`
`CRD-5500 Instruction Manual grouped together, for the Board’s convenience
`
`and to more clearly focus the issues. In such case, Petitioners would make serial
`
`opening arguments, with the -1207 Petitioners being allotted whatever time they
`
`choose from their total argument time from the Oracle/Netapp proceedings.
`
`Patent Owner would follow with one combined argument, including whatever
`
`time it chose to include from its argument in the Oracle/Netapp Proceedings.
`
`Petitioners would then present serial rebuttals.
`
`Second Proposal: Separate Hearings as between Petitioners, with
`CRD-5500 Related Grounds At the Beginning of the Second Argument
`
`However, if the Board wishes to keep arguments between the two sets of
`
`Petitioners separated into different hearings, Patent Owner suggests that oral
`
`argument as to the CRD-5500 grounds in the Oracle/Netapp Proceedings be
`
`allocated to the beginning of oral argument in the afternoon. Petitioners’ first
`
`opening argument would be limited to the CRD-5500 grounds. Patent Owner
`
`would respond, also limited to the same grounds, and Petitioner would reply.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Then, Petitioner would begin its second opening argument as to the remaining
`
`grounds in the Oracle/Netapp Proceedings, followed by Patent Owner, etc.
`
`This arrangement would allow the Board to group the CRD-5500
`
`arguments together but maintain separate hearings as between Petitioners. Patent
`
`Owner is also concerned that the -1207 Petitioners will choose not to address the
`
`CRD-5500 in their opening argument, implicitly relying on the arguments made
`
`by the Cisco and Quantum Petitioners, requiring Patent Owner to address all
`
`Petitioners’ arguments in its response, and leaving Petitioners to address the
`
`CRD-5500 grounds for the first time in rebuttal. Segregating the CRD-5500
`
`argument would force the parties, if they intend to make any such arguments, to
`
`do so before turning to the other grounds. Patent Owner believes that, given the
`
`number of grounds involved, that the combined oral argument for the
`
`Oracle/Netapp Proceedings should be ninety minutes per side, of which 30
`
`minutes could be allotted to the CRD-5500 grounds and one hour permitted for
`
`the remaining grounds. If neither party speak on the CRD, this hearing would be
`
`limited to one hour per side.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/James H. Hall/
`James H. Hall
`Reg. No. 66,317
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies service of this Request for Oral Argument on
`
`September 22, 2015 on counsel for Petitioner by e-mail (pursuant to agreement) at
`
`the below e-mail addresses:
`
`David L. McCombs
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Scott T. Jarratt
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Phillip B. Philbin
`Phillip.Philbin.IPR@haynesboone.com
`Gregory P. Huh
`Gregory.Huh.IPR@haynesbone.com
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Greg Gardella
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`Scott McKeown
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`Oblon, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`
`By: /James H. Hall/
`James H. Hall
`
`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
