`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`Entered: October 4, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY,
`BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, and
`BITCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-01706, -01707
`Patent 7,516,177 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PETER P. CHEN and ROBERT A. POLLOCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`On October 3, 2016, a conference call was held between counsel for the
`
`parties and Judges Kim, Chen, and Pollock. Petitioner requested the call because,
`
`in their view, slides 14–19, 21, 26, 34, and 44 of Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`
`
`IPR2015‐01706, -01707
`Patent 7,516,177 B2
`
`demonstratives (Ex. 2011) 1 were not in compliance with the Board’s guidance
`
`concerning the same, and, thus, should be stricken from the record. In our Order of
`
`September 13, 2016, we noted that “[t]he Board asks the parties to confine
`
`demonstrative exhibit objections to those identifying egregious violations that are
`
`prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Paper 22, 3.
`
`During the call, Petitioner’s counsel identified representative slides 18 and
`
`26 as improperly containing new arguments and evidence. Patent Owner’s counsel
`
`disagreed, asserting generally that Patent Owner should be afforded some leeway
`
`to respond to arguments and evidence set forth for the first time in Petitioner’s
`
`Reply, albeit within the confines of arguments and evidence already of record.
`
`For the reasons articulated during the call, Petitioner’s request is denied. In
`
`particular, the challenged slides appear to generally continue the parties’ discussion
`
`concerning a proper construction of “content,” and we are unpersuaded that any
`
`arguments or evidence referenced on those slides rise to the level of “egregious
`
`violations that are prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Nevertheless,
`
`should the Board determine, in rendering its final written decisions, that any
`
`specific argument or evidence referenced by Patent Owner is outside the scope of a
`
`proper demonstrative slide, it will be excluded from consideration.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a transcript of the call is to be filed as an exhibit
`
`within 10 business days.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 For ease of reference, we will refer only to papers in IPR2015-01706.
`Corresponding papers, however, are also of record in IPR2015-01707.
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2015‐01706, -01707
`Patent 7,516,177 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Joseph Micallef
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`Russell Cass
`rcass@sidley.com
`Erik Carlson
`ecarlson@sidley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Brenton Babcock
`2BRB@knobbe.com
`Ted Cannon
`2tmc@knobbe.com
`Bridget Smith
`2bzs@knobbe.com
`
`Tim Seeley
`tim@intven.com
`James Hietala
`jhietala@intven.com
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
