`571–272–7822
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: October 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01520
`Patent 8,559,635 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Patent 8,559,635 B1
`
`
`On February 15, 2017, we entered a Decision to Institute a trial
`proceeding in IPR2016-01520. Paper 7. A Scheduling Order in the case set
`the date for oral hearing, if requested by either party, as October 26, 2017.
`Paper 8. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, both parties have requested an oral
`hearing. Papers 32, 33. Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s requests for oral
`hearing are granted.
`The oral argument for this case will be heard on Thursday, October
`26, 2017, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern
`Time. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance. In
`person attendance will be accommodated on a first-come-first-served basis.
`If the parties have any concern about disclosing confidential information,
`they are to contact the Board at least five (5) business days in advance of the
`hearing to discuss the matter. The Board will provide a court reporter for the
`hearing and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the
`hearing.
`Each party will have forty five (45) minutes of total time to present
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at
`issue are unpatentable, and Patent Owner bears the burden of proof with
`respect to its Contingent Motion to Amend. Petitioner will proceed first to
`present its case with regard to the challenged claims and grounds on which
`we instituted trial. After Petitioner’s presentation, Patent Owner will
`respond to Petitioner’s argument and also argue in support of its Contingent
`Motion to Amend.
`Each side may reserve time to respond to arguments presented by the
`other side with some limitations. More specifically, to the extent that
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Patent 8,559,635 B1
`
`Petitioner reserves rebuttal time, it may respond to Patent Owner’s
`presentation on all matters. Patent Owner may respond only to Petitioner’s
`arguments opposing the motion to amend in rebuttal.
`Furthermore, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits
`must be served at least seven (7) business days before the hearing. The
`parties shall provide a courtesy copy of any demonstrative exhibits to the
`Board at least three (3) business days prior to the hearing by emailing them
`to Trials@uspto.gov. The parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in
`the records of these proceedings without prior authorization from the Board.
`The demonstrative exhibits in this case are not evidence and are intended
`only to assist the parties in presenting their oral argument to the Board.
`The parties must, however, file any objections to the demonstratives
`with the Board at least three (3) business days before the hearing. Any
`objection to the demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will be
`considered waived. The objections should identify with particularity which
`demonstratives are subject to objection, and include a short (one sentence or
`less) statement of the reason for each objection. No argument or further
`explanation is permitted. The Board will consider the objections and
`schedule a conference if deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will
`reserve ruling on the objections until after the oral argument. The parties are
`directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of
`Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB January 27,
`2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at oral
`hearing, although any backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Patent 8,559,635 B1
`
`whole or in part. If lead counsel for either party will not be in attendance at
`oral hearing, the Board should be notified via a joint telephone conference
`call no later than three (3) business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss
`the matter.
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be honored
`unless presented in a separate communication not less than five (5) business
`days before the hearing directed to the above email address.
`Multiple judges will be participating remotely via a videoconferencing
`device and will not be able to view the projection screen in the hearing
`room. 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 avoid confusion, and to ensure the clarity
`and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the oral argument shall commence
`at 1:00 PM Eastern Time, on Thursday, October 26, 2017, on the ninth
`floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia as
`set forth above.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`Patent 8,559,635 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Marcus E. Sernel
`Joel R. Merkin
`KIRKLAND &ELLIS LLP
`marc.sernel@kirkland.com
`joel.merkin@kirkland.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Douglas Kline
`Jennifer Albert
`Stephen Schreiner
`Krupa K. Parikh
`April E. Weisbruch
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`dkline@goodwinprocter.com
`jalbert@goodwinprocter.com
`sschreiner@goodwinprocter.com
`kparikh@goodwinlaw.com
`aweisbruch@goodwinlaw.com
`DG-PMC-Apple@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Thomas J. Scott, Jr.
`tscott@pmcip.com
`
`
`5
`
`