`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 22
`
`Entered: January 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER GRANTING REQUESTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`On November 30, 2016, Petitioner and Patent Owner filed requests for
`oral argument in the above-captioned proceeding. Papers 20, 21. Each party
`has requested one hour for oral argument. See id.
`The parties’ requests for oral argument are granted. The hearing will
`commence on January 11, 2017, at 1 PM Eastern Time, on the ninth floor of
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The
`hearing will be open to the public. In-person attendance will 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.
`Each party will have 60 minutes of total time to present its arguments.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof, and will thus proceed first to
`present its arguments as to the challenged claims. Petitioner may reserve
`rebuttal time, if desired. Next, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s
`arguments. After Patent Owner concludes its presentation, Petitioner may
`present rebuttal arguments if it has reserved time to do so. Such arguments
`must be responsive to, and may not exceed the scope of, Patent Owner’s
`arguments.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties 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 five (5) business days prior to the hearing by emailing
`them to Trials@uspto.gov. The parties shall not file any demonstrative
`exhibits in this case without our prior authorization. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(b),
`42.70(b). The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`Inc. v. The 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, each party shall provide paper copies of its demonstratives to the
`court reporter on the day of the oral hearing. Such paper copies shall not
`become part of the record of this proceeding.
`Any requests regarding special equipment or needs, such as for
`audiovisual equipment, must be submitted via e-mail 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.
`The parties are advised that at least one member of the panel may
`participate in the hearing remotely. If a demonstrative is not provided 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. The parties are further advised that images projected using
`audiovisual equipment in Alexandria may not be visible to panel members
`who are attending remotely.
`Because of limitations of the audio transmission systems in our
`hearing rooms, the presenter may speak only when standing at the hearing
`room lectern. The parties also are reminded that the presenter must identify
`clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen
`number), paper, or exhibit referenced during its argument in order to allow
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00079
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`each judge to follow the presenter’s arguments and ensure the clarity and
`accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
`The parties also are granted leave to use laptop computers at the
`counsel table. The parties, however, are cautioned that counsel may not use
`laptops to make or transmit audio or visual recordings of the proceeding, or
`to communicate with individuals outside of the hearing room. Laptops may
`not be connected to the Internet (including via cellular modem) during the
`hearing.
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Samuel Borodach
`Michael Autuoro
`John Pegram
`John Goetz
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`IPR10973-0232IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett M. Pinkus
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`pinkus@fsclaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`