`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent Number: 8,457,113
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`Patent Owner Focal IP, LLC hereby requests oral argument pursuant to 37
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`
`
`C.F.R. §42.70. Oral argument is currently scheduled for September 19, 2017 against
`
`YMax Corporation (“Petitioner”). In Section I below, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`presents a proposal to the Board for consolidating and scheduling the oral hearings
`
`associated with the nine proceedings involving three separate petitioner groups. In
`
`Section II below, Patent Owner respectfully requests oral argument on the issues
`
`listed.
`
`Patent Owner also requests a projector that is capable of connecting to a
`
`laptop computer.
`
`
`
`Further, Patent Owner respectfully notifies the Board that it intends to have
`
`multiple attorneys argue separate issues (e.g., claim construction, responses to the
`
`petitions, and motions to amend).
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSAL FOR CONSOLIDATING THE
`PROCEEDINGS
`Patent Owner proposes dividing the proceedings into separate consolidated
`hearings involving the three Petitioner Groups accordingly:
`• Consolidated Group 1 (BHN, WOW, Knology, Birch) – IPR2016-01259,
`01261, 01262, and 01263 (“BHN group”);
`• Consolidated Group 2 (Cisco) – IPR2016-01254 and 01257 (“Cisco group”);
`and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`• Consolidated Group 3 (Ymax) – IPR2016-01256, 01258, and 01260 (“Ymax
`group”).
`
`Below, please find Patent Owner’s Proposal to the Board for efficiently
`hearing oral arguments for all nine of the proceedings:
`A. September 19, 2017 (morning):
`Patent Owner proposes that the Board schedule a consolidated hearing with
`all three Petitioner groups regarding the common disclaimer issues and claim
`construction
`issues associated with
`the related
`terms/phrases regarding a
`controller/processing system, etc. coupled to/in communication with a switching
`facility/tandem switch.
`30 minutes for Patent Owner and 30 minutes for Petitioners as a group.
`B. September 19, 2017 (before lunch)
`Oral hearing for the BHN group where each side has 60 minutes.
`C. September 19, 2017 (afternoon)
`Oral hearing for the Cisco group where each side has 60 minutes. Patent
`Owner proposes holding this hearing on the same day as BHN group due to
`overlapping attorney representation and issues regarding prior art.
`D. September 20, 2017 (morning)
`Oral hearing for the Ymax group where each side has 60 minutes.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`To hear all of the oral arguments in a single day for all nine proceedings that
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`
`
`involve dozens of prior art references, claim constructions issues, and five motions
`
`to amend would be unfairly prejudicial to Patent Owner and violate its due process
`
`rights. It is prejudicial to Patent Owner for its attorneys to argue from sunrise to
`
`sunset while each petitioner group has the advantage of bringing in a fresh set of
`
`attorneys for each new consolidated hearing involving separate evidentiary records
`
`and arguments. Further, all of the parties submitted a joint agreement to the Board
`
`on August 10, 2017 where the parties agreed the Ymax oral arguments should be
`
`scheduled on a separate day, which is practical given that there are only so many
`
`hours in a day to argue nine IPR proceedings having numerous grounds and claim
`
`construction issues, in addition to five motions to amend involving approximately
`
`15 new prior art references.
`
`
`
`Further, Patent Owner proposes holding a separate consolidated hearing for
`
`all nine proceedings regarding the common claim construction and disclaimer issues
`
`associated with the related terms and phrases surrounding the limitation of a
`
`controller/processing system, etc. being coupled to or in communication with a
`
`switching facility/tandem switch, which would reduce the total time for each of the
`
`three main consolidated hearings per Petitioner group by one hour based on the
`
`competing proposals submitted by the Petitioner groups and Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`District courts routinely and customarily hold a joint claim construction
`
`
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`
`
`hearing involving multiple parties. To achieve judicial economy and consistent
`
`outcomes, it makes sense to hold a single claim construction hearing. Otherwise,
`
`the Board will unnecessarily hear the same or similar arguments repeatedly in
`
`addition to creating different evidentiary records which could lead to inconsistent
`
`results.
`
`If the Board determines that it will not hold a consolidated joint hearing on
`
`the aforementioned claim construction/disclaimer issue, then Patent Owner
`
`proposes that each side in each oral hearing receives 90 minutes, where claim
`
`construction would be argued repeatedly in each of the three hearings. Petitioner
`
`groups that are scheduled to argue after the initial hearing are able to improperly and
`
`unfairly gain a strategic advantage of revising their oral arguments based on any
`
`intelligence it may have gleaned from an earlier hearing. Having separate hearings
`
`on the same common issue puts Patent Owner at a strategic disadvantage, which the
`
`Board can easily prevent by holding a consolidated joint hearing on this common
`
`issue or by closing off the hearings to the public.
`
`Patent Owner believes that Petitioner bears the burden of showing that Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed amended claims are unpatentable. However, if the Board
`
`continues to place the burden on Patent Owner to show that its proposed amended
`
`claims are patentable, Patent Owner respectfully requests rebuttal time regarding the
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`opposition arguments brought by Petitioner that are directed to the motions to
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`
`
`amend.
`
`II.
`
` ISSUES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Patent Owner requests oral argument for the following issues:
`
`• In IPR2016-01260, whether Petitioner has met their burden of proof
`
`that challenged claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,457,113 are unpatentable over the prior art in the instituted
`
`grounds of unpatentability;
`
`• In IPR2016-01258, whether Petitioner has met their burden of proof
`
`that challenged claims 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 41, and
`
`45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777 are unpatentable over the prior art in
`
`the instituted grounds of unpatentability;
`
`• In IPR2016-01256, whether Petitioner has met their burden of proof
`
`that challenged claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298 is
`
`unpatentable over
`
`the prior art
`
`in
`
`the
`
`instituted grounds of
`
`unpatentability;
`
`• In IPR2016-01260, whether Patent Owner’s proposed substitute
`
`amended claim 183 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113 is patentable;
`
`• In IPR2016-01258, whether Patent Owner’s proposed substitute
`
`amended claims 47 and 48 of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,777 is patentable;
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`• The proper constructions of the challenged claims and the amended
`
`claims;
`
`• The Motions to Exclude Evidence;
`
`• The Listings of Improper Reply/New Argument and Evidence;
`
`• Rebuttal of the Petitioners’ argument with respect to any issues;
`
`• Any issues identified in Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument; and
`
`• Any additional issues on which the Board seeks clarification.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01260
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 43
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 21st day of August 2017, a copy of Patent Owner’s
`
`Request for Oral Argument has been served in its entirety via email on the following:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Alexander Walden
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`Email: alexander.walden@bryancave.com
`
`Email: PTAB-NY@bryancave.com
`
`Mark D. Passler
`David Brafman
`AKERMAN LLP
`777 South Flagler Drive
`Suite 1100 West Tower
`West Palm Beach, FL 33401
`Tel: (561) 653-5000
`Fax: (561) 659-6313
`Mark.passler@akerman.com
`David.brafman@akerman.com
`
`Dated: August 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`8
`
`