`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LUMENTUM HOLDINGS, INC., LUMENTUM, INC.,
`LUMENTUM OPERATIONS LLC, CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC.,
`CORIANT (USA) INC., CIENA CORPORATION,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and
`FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-007311
`Patent RE42,368
`_____________________
`
`
`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
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01969 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the Board's August 25, 2015 Scheduling
`
`Order (Paper 9), 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 IPR2015-00731
`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 IPR2015-00731 and IPR2015-
`
`01969 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 IPR2015-00731
`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 IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`Case IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`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:
`IPR2015-01969 (cont.):
`IPR2015-00731:
`Walter C. Linder
`Matthew J. Moore
`Kenneth Liebman
`Robert Steinberg
`Paul Sherburne
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
`Matthew.Moore@lw.com
`walter.linder@FaegreBD.com
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`ken.liebman@FaegreBD.com
`cienacapellaipr.lwteam@lw.com
`paul.sherburne@FaegreBD.com
`
`Wayne O. Stacy
`
`IPR2015-01969:
`COOLEY LLP
`WStacy@cooley.com
`J. Pieter van Es
`Thomas K. Pratt
`
`Jordan N. Bodner
`Christopher E. Chalsen
`Michael S. Cuviello
`Lawrence T. Kass
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`Nathaniel T. Browand
`PvanEs@bannerwitcoff.com
`Suraj K. Balusu
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`TPratt@bannerwitcoff.com
`McCLOY LLP
`JBodner@bannerwitcoff.com
`CChalsen@milbank.com
`MCuviello@bannerwitcoff.com
`Banner-Tellabs@bannerwitcoff.com
`LKass@milbank.com
`NBrowand@milbank.com
`SBalusu@milbank.com
`
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`
`Jason Eisenberg, Reg. 43,447
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 14, 2016
`
`
`
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600