Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 55
`Entered: November 7, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SSL SERVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01754
`Patent 6,158,011
`____________
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 55
`Entered: November 7, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SSL SERVICES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01754
`Patent 6,158,011
`____________
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01754
`Patent 6,158,011
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and SSL Services, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) requested oral argument pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a).
`
`Papers 45, 46. The requests are granted.
`
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on Tuesday,
`
`November 15, 2016, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing will be open to the
`
`public for in-person attendance that will be accommodated on a first-come,
`
`first-served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter, and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`
`Each party will have a total of thirty (30) minutes to present
`
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent
`
`Owner’s patent claims at issue are unpatentable. Thus, Petitioner will
`
`proceed first to present its case with respect to the challenged patent claims
`
`and ground with respect to which the Board instituted trial. Thereafter,
`
`Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner may reserve
`
`some of its argument time to respond to Patent Owner’s presentation.
`
`The parties also should note that at least one member of the panel will
`
`be attending the hearing electronically from a remote location. 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 and the
`
`ability of the judge participating in the hearing remotely to closely follow
`
`the presenter’s arguments.
`
`The parties are reminded that the demonstrative exhibits must be
`
`served and filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). Additionally, the
`
`parties are requested to provide a courtesy copy of any demonstrative
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01754
`Patent 6,158,011
`
`exhibits to the Board by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov no later than
`
`4 pm ET on Monday, November 14, 2016.
`
`The Board asks that the parties attempt to resolve objections to the
`
`demonstratives, and if any objections cannot be resolved, the parties must
`
`file those objections with the Board no later than November 10, 2016. Any
`
`objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented will be
`
`considered waived. The objections should identify with particularity which
`
`demonstratives 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 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.
`
`Requests for audio-visual equipment are to be made five (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.
`
`We expect lead counsel for each party to be present at the hearing,
`
`although lead or back-up counsel of record may make the presentation. If
`
`either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not attend 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.
`
`The parties are reminded that, at the oral argument, they “may rely
`
`upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01754
`Patent 6,158,011
`
`only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted.”
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). “No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral
`
`argument.” Id.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on
`
`Tuesday, November 15, 2016, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Theodore M. Foster
`Pranay K. Pattani
`Thomas King
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`pranay.pattani.ipr@haynesboone.com
`thomas.king@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Richard Z. Zhang
`David M. Saunders
`Desmond Jui
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`richard.zhang.ipr@fischllp.com
`david.saunders@fischllp.com
`desmond.jui@fischllp.com
`
`
`4
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
