`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Entered: July 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-0010071
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
` ____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01009
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00422, has been
`joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430); IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956);
`IPR2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412); IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412);
`IPR2016-01020 (Patent 9,014,243); IPR2016-01021 (Patent 8,718,158).
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01020 (Patent 9,014,243 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01021 (Patent 8,718,158 B2)2,3
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Trial Hearing Order
`35 U.S.C. 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`2 DISH Network, L.L.C., Comcast Cable Communications, L.L.C., Cox
`Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Enterprises L.L.C., Verizon
`Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc. have been joined in each of these
`four proceedings. See IPR2017-00251, IPR2017-00253, IPR2017-00254,
`IPR2017-00255, IPR2017-00417, IPR2017-00418, IPR2017-00419, and
`IPR2017-00420.
`3 This Order addresses the same issues in the above listed proceedings.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in all of the above listed
`proceedings. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of
`filing in subsequent papers
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430); IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956);
`IPR2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412); IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412);
`IPR2016-01020 (Patent 9,014,243); IPR2016-01021 (Patent 8,718,158).
`
`
`Both parties requested a hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a).
`Paper 25; Paper 29.4 The requests are granted.
`Both parties suggest we group Cases IPR2016-01006, IPR2016-
`01007, IPR2016-01008, and IPR2016-01009 together and, separately, group
`Cases IPR2016-01020 and IPR2016-01021 together. Paper 25, 2; Paper 29,
`2. We have reviewed the issues that the parties intend to address for each
`proceeding and agree that grouping the cases as requested for purposes of
`the hearing is warranted in view of the overlapping issues.
`Petitioner requests forty (40) minutes per side for each group, whereas
`Patent Owner requests sixty (60) minutes per side for the first group and
`forty (40) minutes per side for the second group. Id. We determine that
`sixty (60) minutes per side is warranted for the first group. Accordingly, the
`hearing will be held in two sessions:
`1. The first session will cover the oral hearing for IPR2016-01006,
`IPR2016-01007, IPR2016-01008, and IPR2016-01009, and shall
`commence at 1:00pm Eastern Time on Thursday, August 3,
`2017, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The total argument time for this
`session will be sixty (120) minutes, with each party having sixty
`(60) minutes to present its arguments with regard to this group of
`cases.
`2. The second session will cover the oral hearing for IPR2016-01020
`and IPR2016-01021, and shall commence at 3:10pm Eastern
`
`
`4 Citations are to IPR2016-01006, unless otherwise noted. Substantively
`similar requests were filed in each of the above-named proceedings.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430); IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956);
`IPR2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412); IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412);
`IPR2016-01020 (Patent 9,014,243); IPR2016-01021 (Patent 8,718,158).
`
`
`Time on Thursday, August 3, 2017, on the ninth floor of
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia. The total argument time for this session will be eighty
`(80) minutes, with each party having sixty (40) minutes to present
`its arguments with regard to this group of cases.
`Given that Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent
`Owner’s claims at issue in this review are unpatentable, each session will
`begin with Petitioner presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for
`the group of cases. Patent Owner then will have the entirety of its allotted
`time to respond to Petitioner’s presentation. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal
`time to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments only. There is no motion to
`amend pending in any of these proceedings.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. Given
`that the hearing will be held in two sessions, each session will have its own
`transcript, the entirety of which will be applicable to and filed in each
`proceeding in that group of cases.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that
`will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven (7) business days before the hearing. The parties are directed to
`St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the
`University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper
`65), regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. We expect
`that the parties will meet and confer in good faith to resolve any objections
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430); IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956);
`IPR2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412); IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412);
`IPR2016-01020 (Patent 9,014,243); IPR2016-01021 (Patent 8,718,158).
`
`to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections cannot be resolved the
`parties may file any objections to demonstratives with the Board at least two
`business days before the hearing. The objections should identify with
`particularity which portions of the demonstrative exhibits are subject to
`objection, include a copy of the objected-to portions, and include a one-
`sentence statement of the reason for each objection. No argument or further
`explanation is permitted. We will consider any objections and schedule a
`conference call if deemed necessary. Otherwise, we will reserve ruling on
`the objections. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented
`timely will be considered waived.
`The parties also shall provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board
`at least two business days prior to the hearing by emailing them
`to Trials@uspto.gov. Despite the requirement in § 42.70(b) for parties to
`file demonstratives, the parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in
`this case without prior authorization from the panel. A hard copy of the
`demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at the hearing.
`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 made fully available or visible to the judge participating
`in the hearing 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 parties are also reminded that
`the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative
`exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430); IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956);
`IPR2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412); IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412);
`IPR2016-01020 (Patent 9,014,243); IPR2016-01021 (Patent 8,718,158).
`
`ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript and the ability of
`the judge participating in the hearing remotely to closely follow the
`presenter’s arguments.
`We expect lead counsel for each party to be present at hearing,
`although any backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in whole or
`in part. If any lead counsel will not be in attendance at hearing, we should
`be notified via a joint telephone conference call no later than two (2)
`business days prior to the hearing to discuss the matter.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Administrative Staff at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-
`visual equipment are to be made at least five (5) days in advance of the
`hearing date by sending the request to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is
`not received timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the
`hearing.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430); IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956);
`IPR2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412); IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412);
`IPR2016-01020 (Patent 9,014,243); IPR2016-01021 (Patent 8,718,158).
`
`CISCO PETITIONER:
`David McCombs
`Theodore Foster
`Gregory P. Huh
`Russell Emerson
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`ARRIS PETITIONER:
`John M. Baird
`Christopher Tyson
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`JMBaird@duanemorris.com
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher M. Scharff
`Rajendra A. Chiplunkar
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com
`rchiplunkar@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`7
`
`