`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00038
`Patent 6,292,974
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00038
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper
`
`No. 17), Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Petitioner”) hereby submits its Request
`
`for Oral Argument. The Board has already scheduled oral argument for January
`
`18, 2017. Scheduling Order (Paper No. 17) at 7. Petitioner believes that the issues
`
`in this proceeding regarding the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 8 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,292,974 (the “’974 Patent”) are sufficiently distinct from the issues
`
`in co-pending proceedings involving Petitioner and Robert Bosch LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”)1 as to warrant a separate argument. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board decline to consolidate oral argument of this proceeding
`
`with any other proceeding.
`
`Petitioner believes that one hour of argument time, including any time
`
`reserved for rebuttal argument, will be sufficient to cover the issues related to this
`
`proceeding. Petitioner also requests permission to use audio-visual equipment to
`
`display possible demonstrative exhibits.
`
`
`1 Other proceedings between Petitioner and Patent Owner include Case Nos.
`
`IPR2016-00034, IPR2016-00036, IPR2016-00039, IPR2016-00040, and IPR2016-
`
`00041. Petitioner has only requested consolidation of IPR2016-00039, IPR2016-
`
`00040, and IPR2016-00041 in its Requests for Oral Argument submitted
`
`simultaneously herewith.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00038
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner specifies the following issues to
`
`be argued:
`
`1. The grounds on which the instant inter partes review proceeding was
`
`instituted, namely the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 8 over Appel
`
`and Prohaska, and the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 8 over
`
`Hoyler and Prohaska. This may include, for example, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’974 Patent.
`
`2. Any issues specified by Patent Owner in a Request for Oral
`
`Argument;
`
`3. Any issues identified by either party in connection with Patent
`
`Owner’s list of allegedly improper reply arguments and Petitioner’s
`
`response;
`
`4. Any issues specified in any motions to exclude, motions to strike, or
`
`motions for observation on cross-examination filed by the parties; and
`
`5. Any issues that the Board deems necessary for issuing a final written
`
`decision or that are otherwise raised by the Board.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00038
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 13, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Stefanie M. Lopatkin/
`Stefanie M. Lopatkin
`Registration No. 74,312
`Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
`One Battery Park Plaza
`New York, New York 10004
`Stefanie.lopatkin@hugheshubbard.com
`(212) 837-6393
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Costco Wholesale Corporation
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00038
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 13th day of December, 2016, the foregoing
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 was served
`
`in its entirety by email on the attorneys of record for Patent Owner:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patrick R. Colsher (patrick.colsher@shearman.com)
`
`Mark Hannemann (mark.hannemann@shearman.com)
`
`Joseph Purcell (joseph.purcell@shearman.com)
`
`
`
`/Stefanie M. Lopatkin/
`Stefanie M. Lopatkin
`Registration No. 74,312
`
`74491542
`
`1
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
