throbber
Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01958 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC., CORIANT (USA) INC., and
`CIENA CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-007261
`Patent RE42,368
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00726
`Patent RE42,368
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the Board's August 24, 2015 Scheduling
`
`Order (Paper 12), Patent Owner Capella Photonics, Inc. respectfully requests oral
`
`argument, which is currently scheduled for May 24, 2016. Patent Owner provides
`
`the following requests for efficient oral hearings across IPR2015-00726, -00727, -
`
`00731, and -007392:
`
` At least 60 minutes per side for the oral argument;
`
` A single oral hearing for all four inter partes review proceedings
`
`because all four of these IPR proceedings involve: the same panel of
`
`judges (APJs Cocks, Deshpande, and Tartal), the same patent owner
`
`(Capella), the same primary applied reference (Bouevitch), and
`
`generally the same set of arguments and evidence;
`
` A shared oral hearing transcript for all four inter partes review
`
`proceedings;
`
` The parties can allot the amount of time that is appropriate across the
`
`60 minutes to argue each of the four cases;
`
` The parties can assign different attorneys to argue different cases and
`
`different issues during the allotted time;
`
`
`2 Petitioners Lumentum and Fujitsu confirmed they will oppose Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed oral hearing format.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00726
`Patent RE42,368
` The argument take place in Conference Room A based on the number
`
`of Patent Owner participants and the number of Petitioners; and
`
` The argument start at 10AM EST.
`
`Patent Owner specifies the following issues to be argued3:
`
`1. [IPR2015-00726]: Whether claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–12, and 15–21 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. RE42,368 (“’368 patent”) are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bouevitch and Carr;
`
`2. [IPR2015-00726]: Whether claims 1–4, 17, and 22 of the ’368 patent
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bouevitch and Sparks;
`
`3. [IPR2015-00727]: Whether claims 1, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19, 44, 53, 61, 64,
`
`and 65 of U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 (“’678 patent”) are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bouevitch and Carr;
`
`4. [IPR2015-00727]: Whether claims 1–4, 19–23, 27, 29, 44–46, and
`
`61–63 of the ’678 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Bouevitch and Sparks;
`
`
`3 Although this Request only applies to the IPR2015-00726 and IPR2015-
`
`01958 proceedings, all issues that would be argued if the requested single oral
`
`argument is granted are listed in this and all other related requests.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00726
`Patent RE42,368
`5. [IPR2015-00731]: Whether claims 1–6, 9–11, 13, and 15–22 of the
`
`’368 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Bouevitch, Sparks, and Lin;
`
`6. [IPR2015-00731]: Whether claim 12 of the ’368 patent is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bouevitch, Sparks, Lin,
`
`and Dueck;
`
`7. [IPR2015-00739]: Whether claims 1–4, 9, 10, 13, 19–23, 27, 44–46,
`
`and 61–65 of the ’678 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Bouevitch, Sparks, and Lin;
`
`8. [IPR2015-00739]: Whether claims 17, 29, and 53 of the ’678 patent
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bouevitch, Sparks,
`
`Lin, and Dueck;
`
`9. Any issues specified by Petitioner in its Request for Oral Argument;
`
`10. Rebuttal to Petitioner’s presentation on all matters; and
`
`11. Any other outstanding motions, pleadings, and other issues that the
`
`Board deems necessary for issuing a Final Written Decision.
`
`Patent Owner requests the ability to use audio visual equipment to display
`
`possible demonstratives and exhibits, including the use of a computer, projector,
`
`and screen.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00726
`Patent RE42,368
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason D. Eisenberg #43447/
`
`Jason Eisenberg, Reg. No. 43,447
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Date: April 14, 2016
`
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00726
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served electronically via e-mail on
`
`April 14, 2016, in its entirety on Attorneys for Petitioners:
`
`IPR2015-01958:
`Matthew J. Moore
`Robert Steinberg
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Matthew.Moore@lw.com
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`cienacapellaipr.lwteam@lw.com
`
`J. Pieter van Es
`Thomas K. Pratt
`Jordan N. Bodner
`Michael S. Cuviello
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`PvanEs@bannerwitcoff.com
`TPratt@bannerwitcoff.com
`JBodner@bannerwitcoff.com
`MCuviello@bannerwitcoff.com
`Banner-Tellabs@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00726:
`Christopher E. Chalsen
`Lawrence T. Kass
`Nathaniel T. Browand
`Suraj K. Balusu
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`McCLOY LLP
`cchalsen@milbank.com
`lkass@milbank.com
`nbrowand@milbank.com
`sbalusu@milbank.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 14, 2016
`
`
`
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`
`Jason Eisenberg, Reg. 43,447
`Attorney for Patent Owner

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