`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 41
`Entered: September 7, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner each request an oral hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 35, 36. The requests are granted.
`Each party will have 30 minutes of total argument time to present its
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the patent
`claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner will
`proceed first to present its case with regard to the challenged claims at issue
`in the instituted trial. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s
`arguments. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to arguments
`presented by Patent Owner.
`The hearing shall commence on October 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm EDT.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance on the ninth
`floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA.
`In-person attendance will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
`basis. The Board will provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall
`constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits, if any, must be
`served seven business days before the hearing. Notwithstanding § 42.70,
`however, the parties shall file the demonstrative exhibits no later than three
`business days before the hearing to allow the panel sufficient time to review
`the materials.
`The Board reminds the parties that demonstrative exhibits are not
`evidence, but are intended to assist the parties in presenting their oral
`arguments to the Board. The Board also reminds the parties that
`demonstrative exhibits are not a mechanism for making arguments not
`previously addressed in the Papers. The parties are directed to St. Jude
`Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If such objections
`cannot be resolved the parties may file any remaining objections with the
`Board at least three business days before the oral hearing. The objections
`should identify with particularity the portions of the demonstrative exhibits
`that are subject to objection and include a one-sentence statement of the
`basis for each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`The Board will consider any objections and schedule a conference call if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the
`objections. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely
`presented will be considered waived.
`A hard copy of the demonstratives should be provided to the court
`reporter at the hearing. The parties are reminded that the 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. 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 filed or otherwise
`made fully available or visible to the judge presiding over the hearing
`remotely, that demonstrative will not be considered. If the parties have
`questions as to whether demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible
`to all of the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board at 571-272-
`9797. Documents presented on the Elmo projector are not visible to remote
`judges, so please plan accordingly.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s
`argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone
`conference with the Board no later than two business days prior to the oral
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at 571-272-9797. Requests for audio-visual equipment
`are to be made no later than 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent directly to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not
`received timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the
`hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Robert Mallin
`Yuezhong Feng
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael J. Wise
`Joseph P. Hamilton
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`MWise@perkinscoie.com
`JHamilton@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`