Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 54
`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: January 19, 2016
`
`
`
`BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MONOSOL RX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00165,
`IPR2015-00168, and IPR2015-00169
`Patent 8,765,167 B21
`____________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, and
`ZHENYU YANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues involving all of the identified cases. We exercise our
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties are authorized to
`use this style heading when filing a single paper in all three proceedings, provided
`that such heading includes a footnote attesting that “the word-for-word identical
`paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.”
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: January 19, 2016
`
`
`
`BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MONOSOL RX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00165,
`IPR2015-00168, and IPR2015-00169
`Patent 8,765,167 B21
`____________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, and
`ZHENYU YANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues involving all of the identified cases. We exercise our
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties are authorized to
`use this style heading when filing a single paper in all three proceedings, provided
`that such heading includes a footnote attesting that “the word-for-word identical
`paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00165, IPR2015-00168, and IPR2015-00169
`Patent 8,765,167 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each have requested a consolidated oral
`hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 for all of the captioned proceedings.
`IPR2015-00165, Papers 47 and 49; IPR2015-00168, Papers 47 and 48;
`IPR2015-00169, Papers 47 and 48. The requests for a consolidated oral
`hearing are granted, with the understanding that the hearing and content of
`each party’s oral argument will be in accordance with the remainder of this
`Order. Oral arguments will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on
`February 12, 2016, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each will have one hour to present
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at
`issue in this review are unpatentable. Petitioner will, therefore, open the
`hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for which the
`Board instituted trial. Patent Owner will then respond to Petitioner’s
`arguments. Petitioner may reserve time to reply to arguments presented by
`Patent Owner.
`Demonstratives are aids in support of oral argument and are not
`evidence in this proceeding. They will not become part of the official record
`of this review other than via the transcript of oral argument. Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall serve any demonstrative exhibits upon
`each other at least five business days prior to the hearing date. The parties
`also shall provide a courtesy copy of any demonstrative exhibits to the
`Board at least five business days prior to the hearing by emailing them to
`Trials@uspto.gov. The parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in
`this proceeding without prior authorization from the Board. A hard copy of
`the demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at the hearing.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00513
`Patent 8,673,550 B2
`
`
`The parties may refer to CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent
`Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033 (PTAB October 23, 2013) (Paper 118), and
`St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the
`University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65)
`regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. Any issue
`regarding demonstrative exhibits should be resolved at least two business
`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.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that
`will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. The Board will
`provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall constitute the official record
`of the hearing. The parties are reminded that each presenter must identify
`clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit, e.g., by slide or screen
`number, referenced during the oral 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. 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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00513
`Patent 8,673,550 B2
`
`
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be
`directed to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received timely, the
`equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that oral arguments in this proceeding shall take place
`beginning at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on February 12, 2016, on the ninth floor
`of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Danielle Herritt
`Deborah Vernon
`Kia Freeman
`McCarter & English, LLP
`dherritt@mccarter.com
`dvernon@mccarter.com
`kfreeman@mccarter.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daniel Scola
`Michael Chakansky
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`dscola@hbiplaw.com
`mchakansky@hbiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
