`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner, Arista Networks, Inc., submits
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`this Request for Oral Argument of claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15-28, 30, 31, 33-36, 55-
`
`64, 66, 67, and 69-72 of U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on all
`
`instituted grounds. The Board has scheduled Oral Hearing for March 7, 2017, on
`
`the same day as the Oral Hearings in IPR2016-00303 (involving U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,377,577 (“’577 patent”)), IPR2016-00306 (involving U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853
`
`(“’853 patent”)), and IPR2016-00308 (involving U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537 (“’537
`
`patent”)). See Paper 9 at 7; IPR2016-00306, Paper 9 at 7.
`
`Given the scope and complexity of the issues in these four proceedings,
`
`Petitioner requests no more than 3.5 hours per side of oral argument time for all
`
`four IPRs, with each side deciding the amount of time to allocate to each IPR. In
`
`addition, Petitioner proposes that the Hearings proceed in the following manner:
`
` Petitioner’s opening argument on the ’577 and ’853 patents;
`
` Patent Owner’s responsive argument on the ’577 and ’853 patents;
`
` Petitioner’s reply argument on the ’577 and ’853 patents;
`
` Petitioner’s opening argument on the ’668 patent;
`
` Patent Owner’s responsive argument on the ’668 patent;
`
` Petitioner’s reply argument on the ’668 patent;
`
` Petitioner’s opening argument on the ’537 patent;
`
` Patent Owner’s responsive argument on the ’537 patent;
`
`2
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s reply argument on the ’537 patent.
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`Petitioner believes that proceeding in this order would be most efficient
`
`because the ’577 and ’853 patents are genealogically related to each other. The
`
`’668 patent and ’537 patent are not related to each other or to the ’577 or ’853
`
`patents.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s preference for the location of the Oral Hearings is in the
`
`West Coast Regional Office, in San Jose, California. Both Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner are located in that area. Petitioner has reached out to Patent Owner with
`
`respect to this issue and has learned that Patent Owner would prefer to have the
`
`Hearing at the USPTO main office in Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 27, 2017
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2508
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Lauren A. Degnan
`Lauren A. Degnan
`Reg. No. 40,584
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on January
`
`27, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Request for Oral Hearing
`
`provided via email to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email address of
`
`record as follows:
`
`Jon E. Wright
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Lori A. Gordon
`Daniel S. Block
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Email: jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: dblock-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
