Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: October 14, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TCL CORPORATION; TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
`HOLDINGS LTD.; TCT MOBILE LIMITED; TCT MOBILE INC.; AND
`TCT MOBILE (US), INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2015-01584 (Patent 6,029,052)
`IPR2015-01600 (Patent 6,029,052)
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This order addresses an issue applicable to each of these cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each case.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: October 14, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TCL CORPORATION; TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
`HOLDINGS LTD.; TCT MOBILE LIMITED; TCT MOBILE INC.; AND
`TCT MOBILE (US), INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2015-01584 (Patent 6,029,052)
`IPR2015-01600 (Patent 6,029,052)
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This order addresses an issue applicable to each of these cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each case.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01584 (Patent 6,029,052)
`IPR2015-01600 (Patent 6,029,052)
`
`
`The date set for oral argument in the two captioned proceedings is
`
`October 26, 2016, if oral argument is requested by either party and granted
`
`by the Board. Paper 8.2 Both parties have requested oral argument pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 in each case, and Petitioner requested that the oral
`
`arguments for both cases be combined into a single session. Paper 59, 1.
`
`The requests are granted.
`
`A single oral argument will be held for both cases and will commence
`
`at 10:00 AM ET on October 26, 2016. The oral argument will be
`
`conducted on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The oral argument will be open to the public
`
`for in-person attendance, which will be accommodated on a first-come, first-
`
`served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter for the oral argument,
`
`and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the oral
`
`argument. The transcript will be entered in both cases. Each party will have
`
`a total of 60 minutes to present arguments. Because Petitioner bears the
`
`ultimate burden of persuasion that the claims at issue are unpatentable,
`
`Petitioner will begin the oral argument by presenting its case regarding the
`
`claims at issue in both cases. Thereafter, Patent Owner will argue its
`
`opposition to Petitioner’s case. Patent Owner also may argue in support of
`
`its Motions to Exclude Evidence, as Patent Owner bears the burden of proof
`
`on those motions. Petitioner may reserve time to rebut Patent Owner’s
`
`opposition and to oppose Patent Owner’s Motions to Exclude Evidence.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner may reserve time solely to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`opposition to Patent Owner’s Motions to Exclude.
`
`
`2 We refer to the papers filed in IPR2015-01584.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01584 (Patent 6,029,052)
`IPR2015-01600 (Patent 6,029,052)
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`
`least seven business days before the oral argument. The parties shall file the
`
`demonstrative exhibits at least two business days before the oral argument.
`
`We expect that the parties will meet and confer in good faith to resolve all
`
`objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections cannot be
`
`resolved, the parties may file objections to demonstrative exhibits with the
`
`Board at least two business days before the oral argument. Any objection
`
`that is not timely presented will be considered waived. The objections
`
`should identify with particularity which demonstrative exhibits 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 may refer to CBS Interactive Inc. v.
`
`Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033 (PTAB October 23, 2013)
`
`(Paper 118), and St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board of
`
`Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27,
`
`2014) (Paper 65) regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`
`exhibits.
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the oral
`
`argument, although backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in
`
`whole or in part. If any lead counsel will not be in attendance at the oral
`
`argument, the Board should be notified via a joint telephone conference call
`
`no later than two days prior to the oral argument to discuss the matter.
`
`Any requests for audio-visual equipment must be emailed to
`
`Trials@uspto.gov at least two days before the oral argument. The
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01584 (Patent 6,029,052)
`IPR2015-01600 (Patent 6,029,052)
`
`parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically
`
`each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced
`
`during the oral argument to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s
`
`transcript.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John Zele
`Alex Hanna
`Bradford Cangro
`Leeger Yu
`Jeffrey Killian
`Jeremy Peterson
`Adam Brooke
`Robert Gaybrick
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`john.zele@morganlewis.com
`alex.hanna@morganlewis.com
`bradford.cangro@morganlewis.com
`leeger.yu@morganlewis.com
`jeffrey.killian@morganlewis.com
`jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`robert.gaybrick@morganlewis.com
`
`Stephen Korniczky
`Martin Bader
`Nam Kim
`Hector Agdeppa
`Daniel Yannuzzi
`David Heisey
`Eric Gill
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01584 (Patent 6,029,052)
`IPR2015-01600 (Patent 6,029,052)
`
`nkim@sheppardmullin.com
`hagdeppa@sheppardmullin.com
`LegalTm-TCL-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com
`dheisey@sheppardmullin.com
`egill@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew Lowes
`David M. O'Dell
`John Russell Emerson
`Clint Wilkins
`Philllip Philbin
`Alan Wang
`Gregory Huh
`Scott Cunning
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`phillip.philbin.ipr@haynesboone.com
`alan.wang.ipr@haynesboone.com
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.cunning@haynesboone.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
