Paper 37
`Entered: March 17, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MAKO SURGICAL CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.1,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00629 (Patent 6,757,582 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00630 (Patent 6,205,411 B1)
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Requests for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 As discussed in Paper 13 of IPR2015-00630, BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC. is the exclusive licensee of the 6,205,411 B1 Patent, and CARNEGIE
`MELLON UNIVERSITY is the Patent Owner of the same patent.
`
`
`Entered: March 17, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MAKO SURGICAL CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.1,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00629 (Patent 6,757,582 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00630 (Patent 6,205,411 B1)
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Requests for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 As discussed in Paper 13 of IPR2015-00630, BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC. is the exclusive licensee of the 6,205,411 B1 Patent, and CARNEGIE
`MELLON UNIVERSITY is the Patent Owner of the same patent.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00629 (Patent 6,757,582 B2)
`IPR2015-00630 (Patent 6,205,411 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`The Scheduling Orders (Papers 7) for these proceedings provided that an
`oral hearing would be conducted if the hearing is requested by the parties and
`granted by the Board. Patent Owner/Exclusive Licensee (hereinafter “Patent
`Owner”) and Petitioner requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70.
`Papers 15, 16 (IPR2015-00629); papers 31, 32 (IPR2015-00630). The requests are
`granted.
`The oral arguments for both inter partes reviews will be merged and
`conducted at the same time, i.e., not in seriatim. Each party will have sixty (60)
`minutes of total oral argument time for both proceedings. Petitioner bears the
`ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at issue in this review are
`unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner will open the hearing by presenting its case
`regarding the challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial. Petitioner
`may allocate its time as it wishes between the patents involved.
`Patent Owner has filed a contingent motion to amend the claims in IPR2015-
`00630 and bears the burden of proof with respect to that motion. After Petitioner’s
`presentation, therefore, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s argument and
`also argue in support of its motion to amend.
`Each side may reserve time to respond to arguments presented by the other
`side with some limitations. More specifically, to the extent that Petitioner reserves
`rebuttal time, it may respond to Patent Owner’s presentation on all matters. To the
`extent that Patent Owner reserves rebuttal time, however, it may respond only to
`Petitioner’s arguments opposing the motion to amend.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM on April 7, 2016, on the ninth floor
`of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The Board
`will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the reporter’s transcript will
`constitute the official record of the hearing. The hearing will be open to the public
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00629 (Patent 6,757,582 B2)
`IPR2015-00630 (Patent 6,205,411 B1)
`
`
`for in-person attendance that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
`basis. 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.
`The parties are reminded that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(7), a proponent of
`deposition testimony must file such testimony as an exhibit. The Board will not
`consider any deposition testimony that has not been so filed. If the parties have
`any concern about disclosing confidential information, they are to contact the
`Board at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
`Furthermore, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be
`served at least five business days before 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.
`The parties must file any objections to the demonstratives with the Board at
`least two business days before the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived. The objections
`should identify with particularity which demonstratives are subject to objection
`and include a short (one sentence or less) statement of the reason for each
`objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted. The Board will
`consider the objections and schedule a conference if deemed necessary.
`Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the objections until after the oral
`argument. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc.
`v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB
`January 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00629 (Patent 6,757,582 B2)
`IPR2015-00630 (Patent 6,205,411 B1)
`
`
`demonstrative exhibits. No live testimony from any witness will be taken at the
`oral argument.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person at the
`oral hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s argument. If
`either party expects 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.
`Any special requests for audiovisual equipment should be directed
`to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be honored unless
`presented in a separate communication not less than five days before the hearing,
`directed to the above email address.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00629 (Patent 6,757,582 B2)
`IPR2015-00630 (Patent 6,205,411 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Matthew I. Kreeger
`Walter Wu
`Wesley E. Overson
`MORRISON & FOESTER LLP
`mkreeger@mofo.com
`wwu@mofo.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER / EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE:
`Brian Buroker
`Stuart Rosenberg
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`srosenberg@gibsondunn.com
`
`Gregory Stark
`SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG WOESSNER P.A.
`gstark@slwip.com
`
`Patrick McElhinny
`Mark Knedeisen
`K&L GATES LLP
`patrick.mcelhinny@klgates.com
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`
`
`5
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
