`___________________
`
`
`
`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 -
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
