Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 45
`Entered: November 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SYMANTEC CORP. and
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-018921
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`HEARING ORDER
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00890 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 45
`Entered: November 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SYMANTEC CORP. and
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-018921
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`HEARING ORDER
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00890 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each have requested a hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) in the above-captioned case. Paper 38; Paper 40. The
`requests for a hearing are hereby granted.
`The hearing will commence at 10:00 AM Pacific Time on
`December 16, 2016, on the 3rd floor of the USPTO’s West Coast Regional
`Office, 26 South 4th Street, San Jose, California. The hearing will be
`open to the public for in-person attendance, to be accommodated on a first-
`come, first-served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter for the
`hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the
`hearing.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each will have a total of thirty (30)
`minutes to present arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof
`that the claims under review are unpatentable. Consequently, Petitioner will
`open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims and
`the ground for which the Board instituted review in the proceeding. Patent
`Owner then will respond to Petitioner’s arguments. Because Patent Owner
`has filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 41) and a Motion for
`Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 42), Patent Owner may discuss
`those motions during its allotted time. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time
`to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the challenged claims and
`to Patent Owner’s arguments, if any, regarding its motions. If Patent Owner
`does not present arguments during its allotted time regarding its motions,
`Petitioner may not present arguments during its rebuttal time regarding
`Patent Owner’s motions. Patent Owner may reserve rebuttal time only to
`respond to Petitioner’s arguments regarding Patent Owner’s motions. If
`Petitioner does not present arguments during its rebuttal time regarding
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s motions, Patent Owner also may not present arguments
`during its rebuttal time regarding its motions, and any rebuttal time reserved
`by Patent Owner shall be surrendered. The fundamental rule governing our
`hearings is that the party bearing the burden of persuasion on an issue may
`speak last on that issue.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), Petitioner and Patent Owner shall serve
`any demonstrative exhibits upon each other at least seven (7) business days
`prior to the hearing. The parties also shall provide the demonstrative
`exhibits to the Board at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing by
`emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov. Despite the requirement of 37
`C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in
`this case without our prior authorization. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). The
`parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Board
`of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041, slip op. 2–5
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), and CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich
`Patent Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 2–4 (PTAB Oct.
`23, 2013) (Paper 118), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits. To aid in the preparation of an accurate transcript,
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each shall provide paper copies of its
`demonstratives to the court reporter on the day of the hearing. We remind
`the parties that demonstratives are not evidence, and that neither the
`demonstratives nor such paper copies shall become part of the record of
`these proceedings.2
`
`
`2 After conferring with each other in a good faith effort to resolve any and all
`objections to demonstratives, the parties may request a conference call with
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`
`We expect lead counsel for each party to be present in person at the
`oral hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s
`arguments. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not attend the
`oral hearing, the parties shall request and make themselves available for a
`conference call with us to occur no later than two (2) business days prior to
`the oral hearing to discuss the reasons for that lead counsel’s absence. Any
`requests regarding special equipment or needs, such as for audio visual
`equipment, should be directed to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for
`special equipment will not be honored unless presented in a separate
`communication directed to the identified email address not less than
`five (5) business days before the hearing.
`Judge Arpin (Denver) and Judge Yang (Alexandria) will participate in
`the hearing remotely. If a demonstrative is not made available to the Board
`in the manner indicated above, that demonstrative may not be available to
`each of the judges during the hearing and may not be considered. Further,
`the parties should assume that images projected, using audio visual
`equipment in San Jose, will not be visible to Judge Arpin in Denver or to
`Judge Yang in Alexandria. Because of limitations on the audio transmission
`systems in our hearing rooms, the presenter may speak only when standing
`at the hearing room podium. The parties also are reminded that the presenter
`must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by
`slide or screen number) referenced and each paper or exhibit from the record
`during the hearing by its number to ensure the ability of each judge to follow
`
`
`us to discuss any remaining objections to the other party’s demonstratives no
`less that two (2) business days prior to the hearing.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`the presenter’s arguments and the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s
`transcript.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Daniel A. Crowe
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`dacrowe@bryancave.com
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Hannah
`Jeffrey H. Price
`Michael Lee
`Shannon Hedvat
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael Kim
`FINJAN, INC.
`mkim@finjan.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
