Filed on behalf of NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`By: Charles R. Macedo (Reg. No. 32,781)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8074
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`N1-Google-IPR@arelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00345
`Patent 8,205,237
`__________________
`
`
`
`NETWORK-1’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`623343.1
`
`
`
`By: Charles R. Macedo (Reg. No. 32,781)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8074
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`N1-Google-IPR@arelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00345
`Patent 8,205,237
`__________________
`
`
`
`NETWORK-1’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`623343.1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00345
`
`Pursuant to:
`
`(a) the Board’s Scheduling Order, dated June 23, 2015 (Paper 7);
`
`(b) the Board’s Order – Conduct of the Proceeding, dated July 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Paper 13); and
`
`
`
`(c) 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a),
`
`Patent Owner Network-1 Technologies, Inc. respectfully requests oral argument,
`
`currently scheduled for March 9, 2016.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Patent Owner specifies, without waiving
`
`any issues not requested, the following issues to be argued:
`
`1.
`
`Rebuttal of each ground of unpatentability on which trial was
`
`instituted for Claims 1-16, 21-27, 29, 30, 33-35, 37, and 38 of the ‘237 Patent,
`
`including the following issues:
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Does Iwamura disclose the claimed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`“sub-linear time search,”
`
`“approximate nearest neighbor search,”
`
` “nonexhaustive search,”
`
`“identify a neighbor / near neighbor,” and
`
`“sublinear approximate nearest neighbor search,”
`
`in the context of the ‘237 Patent?
`
`1
`
`623343.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00345
`
`Ground 2: Does Ghias disclose the claimed:
`
`a) “sublinear time search,” and
`
`b) “approximate nearest neighbor search,”
`
`in the context of the ‘237 Patent;
`
`Ground 3: Are Claims 26, 27, 34, and 35 of the ‘237 Patent obvious over
`
`Iwamura and Chen?
`
`2.
`
`The proper constructions and interpretations of the terms and phrases
`
`identified in (1) above.
`
`3. Whether the Board should consider Petitioner’s theories presented for
`
`the first time in its Reply, such as its theory that Iwamura discloses a sublinear
`
`search when .wav files are added to a database of MIDI files.
`
`4.
`
`Any issues raised in the Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 1)
`
`relating to the grounds on which the Board instituted inter partes review, and all
`
`exhibits cited by Petitioner.
`
`5.
`
`Any issues raised by Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 17),
`
`Declaration of Dr. George Karypis (Ex. 2005), Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 20), and all supporting exhibits cited by Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`623343.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00345
`
`6.
`
`Any issues raised by Petitioner in its Request for Oral Argument
`
`(Paper 21).
`
`7.
`
`Any issues raised by Petitioner in any filings contemporaneous with
`
`or subsequent to this Request.
`
`8.
`
`Any issues for which the Board seeks clarification.
`
`In the interest of efficiency, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board hold a consolidated hearing on the four related IPRs—IPR2015-00343,
`
`IPR2015-00345, IPR2015-00347, and IPR2015-00348—which involve patents in
`
`the same family and certain overlapping prior art and issues. The parties have met
`
`and conferred on this issue, and Patent Owner understands that Petitioner agrees to
`
`a single consolidated hearing. The parties, however, do not agree on the time that
`
`should be allotted for argument.
`
`
`
`The Board “indicated that the total time devoted to the Oral Hearing, if
`
`requested, would be dependent on the number of issues in the proceedings, as
`
`briefed in Patent Owner’s Response and Petitioner’s Reply.” Order – Conduct of
`
`the Proceeding dated July 27, 2015 (Paper 13). Based on the large number of issues
`
`remaining in the four IPR proceedings, as briefed in Patent Owner’s four Responses
`
`and Petitioner’s four Replies, Patent Owner respectfully requests 120 minutes (per
`
`side) to present its arguments and rebut Petitioner’s arguments.
`
`623343.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00345
`
`Patent Owner also requests the ability to use audio visual equipment to
`
`display demonstrative exhibits, including the use of a projector and screen for
`
`displaying demonstrative exhibits (e.g., PowerPoint slides).
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 3, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Charles R. Macedo/
`
`Charles R. Macedo (Reg. No. 32,781)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8074
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`
`623343.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00345
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NETWORK-
`
`1’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT is being served by electronic mail
`
`this 3rd day of February 2016 on counsel for Petitioner as follows:
`
`James J. Elacqua
`Douglas R. Nemec
`Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
`525 University Avenue
`Suite 1400
`Palo Alto, California 94301
`Telephone: (650) 470-4510
`Facsimile: (650) 798-6564
`James.Elacqua@skadden.com
`Douglas.Nemec@skadden.com
`
`
`
`Date: February 3, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Charles R. Macedo/
`Charles R. Macedo
`Registration No. 32,781
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8074
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`N1-Google-IPR@arelaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`623343.1
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
