`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Bright House Networks, LLC,
`WideOpenWest Finance, LLC,
`Knology of Florida, Inc.
`Birch Communications, Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Focal IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01263
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioners Bright House Networks, LLC,
`
`WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, Knology of Florida, Inc., and Birch
`
`Communications, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”) request an oral hearing in IPR
`
`Nos. IPR2016-01259; IPR2016-01261; IPR2016-01262; and IPR2016-01263.
`
`The Board has set Due Date 7 for September 19, 2017 for these IPRs. Paper No.
`
`27 at 4, 6. Petitioners request (without any intent to waive consideration of any
`
`issue not requested) a total of 90 minutes for the Petitioners to address the
`
`following issues at the oral hearing for these IPRs:
`
`1. The unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 15–19, 94, 95, 102, 109–13,
`
`128, 163, 164, 166–168, 175, 179, 180–181 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,457,113 (the “’113 Patent”) from Ground 1 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,683,870 to Archer (“Archer”) in view of the knowledge and skill of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in May 2000), and
`
`claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 15-19, 94, 95, 102, 109-113, 128, and 168 of the
`
`’113 Patent from Ground 2 (Archer in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,958,016 to Chang et al. (“Chang”) and the knowledge and skill of a
`
`POSA in May 2000) as relied upon in the Petition in IPR2016-01261;
`
`2. Whether Patent Owner has met its burden to demonstrate patentability
`
`of proposed substitute claim 183 of the ’113 Patent in view of the
`
`teachings of Archer, Chang, U.S. Patent No. 6,442,169 to Lewis
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Lewis”), U.S. Patent No. 6,333,931 to LaPier (“LaPier”), and
`
`combinations of the teachings of such references in view of the
`
`knowledge and skill of a POSA, and the state of the art, in May 2000.
`
`3. The unpatentability of claims 18, 21, 23, 25-26, 28-31, 37, 38, 41, 45
`
`and 46 of U.S. Patent No. 7,747,777 (“the ’777 Patent”) from the
`
`instituted Ground (Archer in view of Chang and the knowledge and
`
`skill of a POSA in May 2000) as relied upon in the Petition in
`
`IPR2016-01262;
`
`4. Whether Patent Owner has met its burden to demonstrate patentability
`
`of proposed substitute claim 49 of the ’777 Patent in view of the
`
`teachings of Archer, Chang, Lewis, LaPier, and combinations of the
`
`teachings of such references in view of the knowledge and skill of a
`
`POSA, and the state of the art, in May 2000.
`
`5. The unpatentability of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298 (“the
`
`’298 Patent”) from the instituted Ground (Archer in view of Chang
`
`and the knowledge and skill of a POSA in May 2000) as relied upon
`
`in the Petition in IPR2016-01263;
`
`6. The unpatentability of claim 20 of the ’298 Patent from Ground 1
`
`(Archer in view of Chang and the knowledge and skill of a POSA in
`
`May 2000) and Ground 2 (Archer in view of Chang, U.S. Patent No.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`6,445,694 to Swartz (“Swartz”), and the knowledge and skill of a
`
`POSA in May 2000) as relied upon in the Petition in IPR2016-01259;
`
`7. Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude;
`
`8. Responses to any issues identified in Patent Owner’s Request for Oral
`
`Argument; and
`
`9. Any other issues the Board deems necessary for issuing a final written
`
`decision.
`
`In coordination with Cisco Systems, Inc. (Petitioners in IPR2016-01254 and
`
`IPR2016-01257) (“Cisco”), YMax Corporation (Petitioners in IPR2016-01256,
`
`IPR2016-01258, and IPR2016-01260) (“YMax”) and the Patent Owner, Petitioners
`
`also propose the following order for the oral hearings on September 19, 2017:
`
`1. Petitioners IPRs where each side has 90 minutes;
`
`2. Cisco’s IPRs where each side has 30 minutes; and
`
`3. YMax’s IPRs where each side has 90 minutes.
`
`Petitioners and Cisco have discussed areas of overlap between the IPR2016-
`
`01261, IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-01257 proceedings, and, to be respectful of
`
`the Board’s time, will coordinate so as not to present redundant arguments to the
`
`Board during the hearing. Petitioners additionally request that the Board provide
`
`audio-visual equipment to display demonstrative exhibits, including a projector to
`
`be connected to a laptop, and an ELMO for displaying documents of record. In
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`accordance with the Trial Practice Guide, Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157, at 48768,
`
`Petitioners will contact the Board Trial Division paralegal to discuss this request.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Wayne Stacy/
`Wayne Stacy
`USPTO Reg. No. 45,125
`Baker Botts LLP
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR
`PETITIONERS
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.70, the undersigned certifies that on
`
`August 21, 2017, a complete and entire electronic copy of Petitioners’ Request for
`
`Oral Hearing was provided via the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End
`
`(PTAB E2E) System as well as delivering a copy electronically via email on the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`brent@nelbum.com
`PAL-IPR@nelbum.com
`
`John Murphy
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`
`Victor Siber
`vsiber@siberlaw.com
`
`Hanna Madbak
`hmadbak@siberlaw.com
`
`Dated: August 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Wayne Stacy/
`Wayne Stacy
`USPTO Reg. No. 45,125
`Baker Botts LLP
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR
`PETITIONERS
`
`