`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01691
`Patent No. 8,024,901
`__________________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)
`
`US.107891217.01
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner Allsteel, Inc. respectfully
`
`requests the opportunity to present oral argument in this matter. The Board has set
`
`October 13, 2016, as the date for any oral argument in this matter. (Scheduling
`
`Order, Paper No. 11). In accordance with the general guidelines set forth in the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 45,756 at 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012),
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that it be permitted to present its case first, and
`
`requests one hour of argument time with the opportunity to reserve time for a
`
`rebuttal. The issues to be addressed include the following:
`
`1.
`
`The grounds for which inter partes review was instituted:
`
`a. U.S. Patent 8,024,901 claims 1, 6, 7, and 15-18 are obvious over Raith
`
`and EVH;
`
`b. U.S. Patent 8,024,901 claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 are obvious over Raith and
`
`Yu;
`
`c. U.S. Patent 8,024,901 claims 1, 4, 10, 19, and 20 are obvious over Raith
`
`and MacGregor;
`
`d. U.S. Patent 8,024,901 claim 25 is obvious over Raith, MacGregor, and
`
`Rozier; and
`
`e. U.S. Patent 8,024,901 claim 14 is obvious over Raith, EVH, and Dixon.
`
`2.
`
`Any issues addressed by Petitioner in IPR2015-01691, including in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 1), Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`
`-1-
`US.107891217.01
`
`
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper No. 30), and in Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Evidence, and Patent Owner’s Response, if any.
`
`3.
`
`Any issues properly raised by Patent Owner in IPR2015-01691, including in
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 9) and Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (Paper No. 24), and also in Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude and
`
`Motion for Observation Regarding Cross-Examination, and Petitioner’s
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`responses thereto, if any.
`
`Issues related to evidence submitted in this proceeding.
`
`Rebuttal to issues raised by Patent Owner in this proceeding.
`
`Any issues in this proceeding noted in Patent Owner’s Request for Oral
`
`Argument, or otherwise raised by the Board.
`
`Petitioner requests permission to use audio/visual equipment to display
`
`demonstrative exhibits, including a computer, projector, and screen to display
`
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`
`By:
`
`/Victor P. Jonas/
`Victor P. Jonas
`Reg. No. 58,590
`
`
`
`demonstratives and exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: Sept. 6, 2016
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`US.107891217.01
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on September 6, 2016, I
`
`caused a true and correct copy of Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument to be
`
`served via email, as a PDF attachment, on the following:
`
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`/Victor P. Jonas/
`Victor P. Jonas
`Reg. No. 58,590
`
`
`
`Chad Nydegger
`cnydegger@wnlaw.com
`
`David Todd
`dtodd@wnlaw.com
`
`Michael J. Frodsham
`mfrodsham@wnlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 6, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 South Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
`Telephone: (612) 766-7000
`Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
`
`
`US.107891217.01
`
`-3-
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
