Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 47
`Date Entered: June 23, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC., MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL
`CO., LTD., MSI COMPUTER CORP., GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLGY, CO.,
`LTD.,
`AND G.B.T., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KINGLITE HOLDINGS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01079
`Patent 6,373,498 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01079
`Patent 6,373,498 B1
`
`
`A trial in this proceeding was instituted on October 29, 2015. Paper 17
`(“Decision to Institute”). A Scheduling Order entered on the same date set the oral
`hearing for June 29, 2016, if hearing is requested by the parties and granted by the
`Board. Paper 18 (“Scheduling Order”). American Megatrends, Inc., Micro-Star
`International Co., Ltd., MSI Computer Corp., Giga-Byte Technology, Co., Ltd.,
`and G.B.T., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) has requested an oral hearing pursuant
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. The request is GRANTED.
`Each party will have 45 minutes of total argument time. Petitioner bears the
`ultimate burden of proof that the claims at issue in this review are unpatentable.
`Therefore, at oral hearing, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with
`regard to the challenged claims on which basis we instituted trial. Petitioner may
`also present argument in support of its Motion to Exclude. Thereafter, Kinglite
`Holdings LLC (“Patent Owner”) will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case and
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Patent Owner will also present its own case with
`regard to its Motion to Amend, as Patent Owner bears the burden of proof on this
`motion. Petitioner may use any time Petitioner reserved to oppose Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend and to rebut Patent Owner’s opposition to both Petitioner’s
`challenges to the claims and Patent Owner’s opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude. Finally, Patent Owner may use any time it reserved solely to rebut
`Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`There is a strong public policy interest in making all information presented
`in these proceedings public, as the review determines the patentability of claims in
`an issued patent and thus affects the rights of the public. This policy is reflected in
`part, for example, in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) and 35 U.S. C. § 326(a)(1) which
`provide that the file of any inter partes review or post grant review be made
`available to the public, except that any petition or document filed with the intent
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01079
`Patent 6,373,498 B1
`
`that it be sealed shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed
`pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion. There are no motions to seal in
`the present proceeding. Accordingly, the Board exercises its discretion to make
`the oral hearing publically available via in-person attendance.
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 10:00 AM on June 29, 2016, on
`the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`In-person attendance will be accommodated on a first come, first serve basis.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the reporter’s
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. Any demonstrative
`exhibits must be served five business days before the hearing. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70(b). Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and may not introduce new
`evidence or arguments. Instead, demonstrative exhibits should cite to evidence in
`the record. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc.
`v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case No. IPR2013-00041
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), and CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent
`Licensing, LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118),
`regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. Any issue regarding
`demonstrative exhibits should be resolved at least three days prior to the hearing by
`way of a joint telephone conference call to the Board. The parties are responsible
`for requesting such a conference sufficiently in advance of the hearing to
`accommodate this requirement. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not
`timely presented will be considered waived. Demonstratives should be filed at the
`Board no later than two days before the hearing. A hard copy of the
`demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at the hearing.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be directed to
`the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual equipment are to be
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01079
`Patent 6,373,498 B1
`
`made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The request is to be sent to
`Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received timely, the equipment may
`not be available on the day of the hearing. The parties are reminded that the
`presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by
`slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and
`accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person at the
`oral hearing. However, lead or backup counsel may present the party’s argument.
`If either party anticipates 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.
`
`
`PETITIONER (via electronic transmission):
`
`Vivek Ganti
`Gregory Ourada
`HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP
`vg@hkw-law.com
`go@hkw-law.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER (via electronic transmission):
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4