`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00039
`Patent 7,228,588
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00039
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper
`
`No. 20), 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. 20) at 7. The Board also scheduled a
`
`hearing on the same date in the related IPR2016-00040 proceeding, which
`
`involves U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264 (the “’264 Patent”), and the related IPR2016-
`
`00041 proceeding, which involves U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823 (the “’823 Patent”).
`
`The ’264 Patent is a division of the same application that resulted in U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,228,588 (the “’588 Patent”), at issue in this proceeding, and the ’823 Patent
`
`is a division of the same application that resulted in the ’264 Patent. The ’588
`
`Patent, the ’264 Patent, and the ’823 Patent are directed to similar subject matter
`
`and thus, the trials will involve overlapping issues and arguments. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board consolidate oral argument for
`
`IPR2016-00039, IPR2016-00040, and IPR2016-00041.
`
`Petitioner believes that one hour of argument time, including any time
`
`reserved for rebuttal argument, will be sufficient to cover the issues related to
`
`these three proceedings. Petitioner also requests permission to use audio-visual
`
`equipment to display possible demonstrative exhibits.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner specifies the following issues to
`
`be argued:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00039
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`1. The grounds on which the instant inter partes review proceeding was
`
`instituted, namely the unpatentability of claims 1, 12, and 14 over
`
`Kotlarski and Prohaska; and the unpatentability of claims 1, 12, and
`
`14 over Merkel and Prohaska. This may include, for example, the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’588 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00039
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00039
`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
`
`
`74226373
`
`1