Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 57
`
`Entered: April 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00448 (Patent 7,908,343 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 57
`
`Entered: April 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00448 (Patent 7,908,343 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00448 (Patent 7,908,343 B2)
`IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506 B2)
`
`
`The date set for oral hearing in these proceedings is April 18, 2017, if
`a hearing is requested by either party and granted by the Board. Paper 10.
`Both parties have requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. The
`request is GRANTED. Each party will have 60 minutes of total argument
`time. Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) bears the ultimate burden of
`proof that the claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, at
`oral hearing Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with regard to the
`challenged claims on which basis we instituted trial and on Petitioner’s
`Motion to Exclude Evidence. Thereafter, Bradium Technologies LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case, including
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence and its opposition to
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence. Petitioner then may use any time
`Petitioner reserved to rebut to Patent Owner’s opposition.
`There is a strong public policy interest in making all information
`presented in these proceedings public, as the review determines the
`patentability of claims in an issued patent and thus affects the rights of the
`public. This policy is reflected in part, for example, in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1)
`and 35 U.S. C. § 326(a)(1) which provide that the file of any inter partes
`review or post grant review be made available to the public, except that any
`petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed shall, if
`accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending the outcome
`of the ruling on the motion. Accordingly, the Board exercises its discretion
`to make the oral hearing publically available via in-person attendance.
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 1:30 PM Eastern Time on
`April 18, 2017, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing will be open to the public for in-
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00448 (Patent 7,908,343 B2)
`IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506 B2)
`
`person attendance that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
`basis. If the parties have any concern about disclosing confidential
`information, they are to contact the Board by April 14, 2017 to discuss the
`matter.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. Any
`demonstrative exhibits must be served on or before April 14, 2017.
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and may not introduce new
`evidence or arguments. Instead, demonstrative exhibits should cite to
`evidence in the record. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical,
`Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of
`Michigan, Case No. IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), and
`CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033,
`Paper 118 (Oct. 23, 2013), regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits.
`The parties should attempt to resolve any objections to demonstratives
`prior to involving the Board. The parties must file any unresolved
`objections to the demonstratives with the Board by April 17, 2017. Any
`objection to the demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will be
`considered waived. The objections should identify with particularity which
`demonstratives are subject to objection, and include a short (one sentence or
`less) statement of the reason for each objection. The Board will consider the
`objections and schedule a conference if necessary, or the Board may reserve
`ruling until after the oral argument.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00448 (Patent 7,908,343 B2)
`IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506 B2)
`
`
`Demonstratives should be filed at the Board by April 17, 2017. A
`hard copy of the demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at
`the hearing.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment are to be made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and
`specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number)
`referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`reporter’s transcript. The parties also should note that at least one member
`of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically from a remote
`location and that if a demonstrative is not filed or otherwise made fully
`available or visible to the judge participating remotely, that demonstrative
`will not be considered. If the parties have questions as to whether
`demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible and available to all of
`the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board at 571-272-9797.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. However, lead or backup counsel may present the
`party’s argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone
`conference with the Board no later than two business days prior to the oral
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00448 (Patent 7,908,343 B2)
`IPR2016-00449 (Patent 8,924,506 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Chun Ng
`Matthew Bernstein
`Patrick McKeever
`Vinay Sathe
` Evan S. Day
`
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`PMcKeever@perkinscoie.com
`VSathe@perkinscoie.com
`EDay@perkinscoie.com
`PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Michael Zachary
`Clifford Ulrich
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`
`ccoulson@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`michaelzachary@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`cliffordulrich@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
