Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`
`Entered: July 17, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AM GENERAL LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01049 (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666)
`IPR2016-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,258)
`IPR2016-01051 (U.S. Patent No. 5,729,456)
`____________
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER1
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issue in the proceedings listed above.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`
`Entered: July 17, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AM GENERAL LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01049 (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666)
`IPR2016-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,258)
`IPR2016-01051 (U.S. Patent No. 5,729,456)
`____________
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER1
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issue in the proceedings listed above.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01049 (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666)
`IPR2016-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,258)
`IPR2016-01051 (U.S. Patent No. 5,729,456)
`
`
`Petitioner, AM General LLC, and Patent Owner, UUSI, LLC, each
`requested oral argument. Papers 34, 35.2 The requests are granted.
`Oral argument will commence at 9:00 AM ET on August 2, 2017.
`The hearing will be conducted on the ninth floor of Madison Building
`East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. This single hearing
`will cover three proceedings: IPR2016-01049, IPR2016-01050, and
`IPR2016-01051.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance, which
`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. For planning purposes, it is not
`required, but it would be greatly appreciated, if the parties could indicate to
`the Board by email to Trials@uspto.gov approximately how many people
`they expect to be present at the hearing for each side.
`Each party will have sixty (60) minutes of total argument time.
`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. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time. Thereafter, Patent
`Owner will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case. Petitioner may use any
`time Petitioner reserved to rebut Patent Owner’s opposition. Patent Owner
`may not reserve rebuttal time.
`
`
`2 We cite to the record in IPR2016-01049. Similar documents were filed in
`each of the three proceedings to which this Order applies.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01049 (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666)
`IPR2016-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,258)
`IPR2016-01051 (U.S. Patent No. 5,729,456)
`
`
`Specific requests for video equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov at least five (5) days in advance of the hearing date. If
`the request is not received timely, the equipment may not be available on the
`day of the hearing. Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment
`should be directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797.
`At least one member of the panel will be attending the hearing
`electronically from a remote location and may not be able to view the
`projection screen in the hearing room. Thus, if a demonstrative exhibit is
`not made available or visible to the judge(s) presiding over the hearing
`remotely, that demonstrative exhibit will not be helpful. Each 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 and for the benefit of the judge(s)
`presiding over the hearing remotely. A hard copy of the demonstratives
`should be provided to the court reporter at the hearing. Also, the parties are
`reminded that, at the oral argument, they “may rely upon evidence that has
`been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present
`arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted.” Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). “No
`new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.” Id.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served on
`opposing party seven (7) business days prior to the hearing. The Board
`expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith to resolve any
`objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections cannot be
`resolved, the parties are directed to request a conference call with the Board
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01049 (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666)
`IPR2016-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,258)
`IPR2016-01051 (U.S. Patent No. 5,729,456)
`
`no later than three (3) business days prior to the hearing to resolve any
`dispute over the propriety of each party’s demonstrative exhibits. The
`parties are responsible for requesting such a conference sufficiently in
`advance of the hearing to accommodate this requirement. Any objection to
`demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will be considered
`waived. The Board asks the parties to confine demonstrative exhibit
`objections to those identifying egregious violations that are prejudicial to the
`administration of justice. The parties may refer to CBS Interactive Inc. v.
`Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033 (PTAB October 23, 2013)
`(Paper 118), and St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board of
`Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB
`Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65) regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`exhibits. The parties are directed to file demonstrative exhibits two (2)
`business days prior to the hearing.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. Lead or backup counsel, however, may present the
`party’s argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the oral argument, the parties should request a joint telephone
`conference with the Board no later than two (2) business days prior to the
`oral hearing to discuss the matter.
`It is
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 9:00 AM ET on
`August 2, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01049 (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666)
`IPR2016-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,258)
`IPR2016-01051 (U.S. Patent No. 5,729,456)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Nicole M. Jantzi
`Ian B. Brooks
`Paul M. Schoenhard
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`njantzi@mwe.com
`ibrooks@mwe.com
`pschoenhard@mwe.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay Kesan
`Teresa Summers
`DiMuro Ginsberg PC
`jay@keyiplaw.com
`teresa@keyiplaw.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
