`___________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
`IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
`
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00375
`Patent No. 8,074,115
`___________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`7315063
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00375
`U.S. Patent No. 8,074,115
`Patent Owner, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New
`
`York ("Columbia"), requests oral argument under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the
`
`Board’s June 3, 2015 Scheduling Order (Paper 14). Lead counsel for Columbia
`
`met and conferred with lead counsel for Petitioner and the parties agree that the
`
`hearings in IPR2015-00375 and IPR2015-00377 could be concluded in one half-
`
`day session and that each side should have 90 minutes collectively to present its
`
`case on both matters. Oral argument is currently scheduled for March 16, 2016.
`
`(Paper 16, Due Date 7.) Columbia requests a morning hearing time (9 a.m. EST)
`
`as feasible. Columbia also requests the ability to use audio-visual equipment for
`
`demonstrative exhibits, including the use of a projector and screen for PowerPoint
`
`slides.
`
`Finally, Columbia requests the Board allow live testimony during the
`
`hearing for Columbia's expert witness, Dr. George Cybenko.1 In its Reply,
`
`Petitioner incorrectly characterized numerous evidence (including new ones it
`
`raised for the first time). These include Dr. Goodrich's testimony regarding
`
`emulator (for which he provided little, if any, analysis in his original declaration),
`
`his citation for the first time a purported "combined model" disclosed by Agarwal,
`
`his newly theories on why a POSITA would have had reasons to combine models
`
`created on different computers or at different times as required by the claims, and
`
`1 Petitioner states that it opposes the request.
`
`7315063
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00375
`U.S. Patent No. 8,074,115
`Symantec's attorney argument regarding the teaching of a new exhibit, Ex. 1016
`
`(see Reply at 6). Dr. Cybenko can explain to the Board why Dr. Goodrich's and
`
`Petitioner's assertions were incorrect. Having Dr. Cybenko available to the Board
`
`for live testimony would provide the Board with the opportunity to address such
`
`technical disputes the Board may have.
`
`Columbia specifies the following issues to be argued, without intent to
`
`waive consideration of any allowable issue not requested or raised by Petitioner:
`
`1. Whether Claims 22, 25, 27-29, 32, 35-39 and 42 are anticipated by the
`
`Khazan reference
`
`2. Whether Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 14-18, 21 and 26 are obvious in light of
`
`the Khazan reference and Arnold.
`
`3. Whether Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 23, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 40
`
`and 41 are obvious in light of Khazan, Arnold and Agrawal.
`
`4.
`
`In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's January 15, 2016 grant of
`
`certiorari in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446,
`
`Columbia intends to argue at the oral hearing that the "broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation" ("BRI") standard for claim construction is
`
`not properly applied in these proceedings, and that the Board should
`
`disregard Dr. Goodrich's analysis with respect to all claims because it
`
`is based on the BRI standard and is inconsistent with the proper claim
`
`7315063
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00375
`U.S. Patent No. 8,074,115
`construction standard (e.g., the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner is the party with the burden of proof and will therefore
`
`present first at the oral hearing. Columbia will address any issues
`
`raised by Petitioner, or questions raised by the Board during
`
`Petitioner's presentation.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Hong Zhong
`H. Annita Zhong, Reg. No. 66,530
`Michael Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`
`
`
`7315063
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00375
`U.S. Patent No. 8,074,115
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on February 17,
`
`2016, a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following, by
`
`ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`
`
`Michael Sacksteder
`msacksteder@fenwick.com
`
`Brian M. Hoffman
`bhoffman@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`Fenwick & West LLP
`555 California Street
`12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`
`
`
`
`/s/Susan M. Langworthy/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7315063
`
`
`- 1 -