`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v .
`
`
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), and the Order Rescheduling Oral
`
`Argument entered on July 5, 2017, Paper 29, Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Company (“Reynolds”) respectfully requests oral argument, currently scheduled
`
`for October 10, 2017.
`
`
`
`Without intending to waive any issue not specifically identified, Petitioner
`
`identifies below the issues to be argued:
`
`1. The first ground of unpatentability instituted in IPR2016-01268:
`
`Claims 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742 (“the ‘742 patent”) as being obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chinese Patent No. 2719043Y (“Hon ‘043”) (Ex.
`
`1002, 1003), in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore”) (Ex. 1004. See
`
`e.g. Paper 10 at 14-15.
`
`2. Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in Petitioner’s Petition
`
`for IPR (Paper 2), and/or supplemental information (Exs. 1020-1021).
`
`3.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in the Board’s Decision
`
`to institute the present proceeding. Paper 10.
`
`4.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8), and/or Response (Paper 24).
`
`5.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Paper 30.
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Any issues raised in any motions to exclude that may be filed pursuant
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742
`
`to the Scheduling Order (Paper 11) on or after the date of filing this request.
`
`7. Any issues or evidence that may be raised in any observations or
`
`responses to observations that may be filed pursuant to the Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 11) on or after the date of filing this request.
`
`8.
`
`Any issues specified by Patent Owner in a Request for Oral
`
`Argument, but only to the extent the Board grants Patent Owner’s Request on
`
`those issues.
`
`9.
`
` Any additional issues raised by Patent Owner during oral argument.
`
`Petitioner requests that each side be given 60 minutes of oral argument.
`
`Petitioner reserves the right for rebuttal. Petitioner will inform the Board of its
`
`specific allocation of time for its opening and rebuttal at the beginning of the oral
`
`argument.
`
`Petitioner also requests the ability to use computers at counsel’s table to
`
`display demonstrative exhibits, and respectfully requests that PTAB provide a
`
`projector with VGA and HDMI connections for that purpose. Additionally,
`
`Petitioner requests that the following equipment be made available: an easel, an
`
`Elmo projector, a laptop projector, and a screen.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 25, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ralph J. Gabric
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No. 34,167)
`Robert Mallin (Reg. No. 35,596)
`Yuezhong Feng (Reg. No. 58,657)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on August 25, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Request for Oral Argument was served by electronic submission through the
`
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End System and by e-mail to:
`
`
`Michael J. Wise, Lead Counsel (MWise@perkinscoie.com)
`Joseph P. Hamilton, Back-up Counsel
`(JHamilton@perkinscoie.com)
`Jenna M. DeRosier (JDeRosier@perkinscoie.com)
`Tyler R. Bowen, Back-up Counsel
`(TBowen@perkinscoie.com)
`Amy Candeloro (ACandeloro@perkinscoie.com)
`patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 25, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`James R. Donnelly
`/s/
`James R. Donnelly, Paralegal
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
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
