throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 75
`Entered: February 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LICENSING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2015-004831 (Patent 5,894,554)
`IPR2015-004852 (Patent 6,415,335)
`
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-00484 has been consolidated with this proceeding; International
`Business Machines Corporation was joined as a party to this proceeding via
`Motions for Joinder in IPR2015-01729 and IPR2015-01731.
`2 IPR2015-00486 has been consolidated with this proceeding; International
`Business Machines Corporation was joined as a party to this proceeding via
`Motions for Joinder in IPR2015-01732 and IPR2015-01734.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00483 (Patent 5,894,554)
`IPR2015-00485 (Patent 6,415,335)
`
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and International Business
`Machines Corporation (collectively, “Microsoft”), and Patent Owner Parallel
`Networks Licensing, LLC (“Parallel”), each requested oral hearings in these
`two related inter partes review trials, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers
`60, 66.3 Upon consideration, the requests for oral hearing are granted. Oral
`argument shall commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on March 16, 2016, on
`the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`Because of the related nature of these cases, the Board exercises its
`discretion to consolidate the hearings. Each party will have one hour of total
`time to present arguments. A party may allot argument time between the
`two cases as it wishes.
`Microsoft bears the ultimate burden of proof that Parallel’s claims at
`issue in these reviews are unpatentable. Therefore, Microsoft will open the
`hearing by presenting argument regarding the pending grounds of
`unpatentability in both IPR2014-00483 and IPR2015-00485. Parallel will
`then have the opportunity to respond to Microsoft’s arguments on both
`cases. If desired, Microsoft may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`arguments presented by Parallel.
`The Board will provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall
`constitute the official record of the hearing. Although a Motion to Seal has
`been granted-in-part and another Motion to Seal is pending, neither party
`requested that the oral hearing be closed to the public. Accordingly, the
`Board concludes that the parties are capable of presenting their arguments in
`
`
`3 Citations are to the record in IPR2015-00483; similar requests may be
`found in the record of IPR2015-00485.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00483 (Patent 5,894,554)
`IPR2015-00485 (Patent 6,415,335)
`
`these cases without discussing confidential information, and exercises its
`discretion to make the oral hearing publicly accessible. The hearing will be
`open to the public for in-person attendance that will be accommodated on a
`first-come, first-served basis.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits shall be
`served on opposing counsel at least five business days before the hearing,
`and filed with the Board no later than the time of the oral argument. The
`parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The
`Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate
`content of demonstrative exhibits.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections
`cannot be resolved the parties may file any objections to demonstratives with
`the Board at least two business days before the hearing. The objections
`should identify with particularity which portions of the demonstrative
`exhibits are subject to objection, include a copy of the objected-to portions,
`and include a one-sentence statement of the reason for each objection. No
`argument or further explanation is permitted. The Board will consider any
`objections and schedule a conference call if deemed necessary. Otherwise,
`the Board will reserve ruling on the objections. Any objection to
`demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered
`waived.
`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
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00483 (Patent 5,894,554)
`IPR2015-00485 (Patent 6,415,335)
`
`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.
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov. The parties should be aware that at least one member of
`the panel will be attending the oral argument remotely by use of two-way
`audiovisual communication equipment and will not be able to view the
`projection screen in the hearing room.
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is:
`ORDERED that oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the procedures
`outlined above, shall commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on March 16,
`2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00483 (Patent 5,894,554)
`IPR2015-00485 (Patent 6,415,335)
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Joseph Mitcallef
`Jeffrey Kushan
`Michael Hatcher
`SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`Jason Wolff
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`wolff@fr.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Bovenkamp
`Pierre Hubert
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`cbovenkamp@mckoolsmith.com
`phubert@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket