`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`