`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 47
`
`Date Entered: Sept. 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`A trial in this proceeding was instituted on December 23, 2015
`(Paper 15, “Decision to Institute”). A Scheduling Order was entered on
`December 30, 2015. The Scheduling Order set the date for oral hearing to
`September 19 2016, if hearing is requested by the parties and granted by the
`Board. Paper 17 (“Scheduling Order”). Both parties have requested oral
`hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. The request is GRANTED.
`Each party will have 45 minutes of total argument time. Microsoft
`Corporation (“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 and on Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`Evidence (Paper 43). Thereafter, Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case and to Petitioner’s
`Motion to Exclude Evidence. Petitioner then may use any time Petitioner
`reserved to rebut to Patent Owner’s opposition.
`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 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 1:30 PM on September 19,
`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 on or before September 12, 2016.
`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, IPR2013-00033,
`Paper 118 (Oct. 23, 2013), 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 made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`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 parties also should note that at least one member
`of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically from a remote
`location and that if a demonstrative is not filed or otherwise made fully
`available or visible to the judge participating remotely, that demonstrative
`will not be considered. If the parties have questions as to whether
`demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible and available to all of
`the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board at 571-272-9797.
`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)
`Bing Ai
`ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Vinay Sathe
`vsathe@perkinscoie.com
`
`Patrick McKeever
`pmckeever@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`Matthew Bernstein
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`Evan Day
`eday@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`Christopher Coulson
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`
`Clifford Ulrich
`culrich@kenyon.com
`
`5