`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`COXCOM, LLC
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01762
`Patent 7,397,363
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01762
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the Board’s February 22, 2016
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper 9), Patent Owner Joao Control & Monitoring Systems,
`
`LLC respectfully requests oral argument, which is currently scheduled for
`
`November 17, 2016, on the issues raised in the Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent 7,397,363 ("the ’363 Patent"), Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`
`the Decision to Institute, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response, Motions for Observations on Cross Examination and any
`
`Responses (if filed), and any Motions to Exclude and corresponding Oppositions
`
`and Replies (if filed). The issues to be argued include:
`
`• The ‘363 Patent’s entitlement to a priority date of March 27, 1996;
`
`• The disqualification of the Koether and Crater references as prior art based
`
`on the March 27, 1996 priority date;
`
`• CoxCom’s failure to name all the real parties-in-interest in the present
`
`IPR;
`
`• The Petition being time-barred with respect to real parties-in-interest
`
`Terremark and Time Warner;
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01762
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• How the X.25 Protocol used by Koether teaches away from combining
`
`Koether and Crater; and
`
`• Koether and Crater’s failure to disclose, teach or suggest determining
`
`whether an action or operation is an authorized or allowed action or operation.
`
`Patent Owner requests the ability to use audio visual equipment to display
`
`possible demonstratives and exhibits, including the use of a projector and screen.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
`
`
`
`Date: October 3, 2016
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`/René A. Vazquez/
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01762
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Oral Argument
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify service of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Request for Oral
`
`Argument on October 3, 2016 via electronic service at:
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell (Lead Counsel), Reg. No. 39,389
`D. Clay Holloway (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 58,011
`Shayne O’Reilly (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 58,765
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`Phone: 404-532-6959
`Email: mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com;
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com; soreilly@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
`
`BY: /René A. Vazquez/
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`Date: October 3, 2016