Paper 30
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 31, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC
`(d/b/a ON SEMICONDUCTOR),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01589 (Patent 6,249,876 B1)
`Cases IPR2016-01594, -01595 (Patent 8,115,457 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01600 (Patent 7,834,605 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 31, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC
`(d/b/a ON SEMICONDUCTOR),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01589 (Patent 6,249,876 B1)
`Cases IPR2016-01594, -01595 (Patent 8,115,457 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01600 (Patent 7,834,605 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01589 (Patent 6,249,876 B1)
`Cases IPR2016-01594, -01595 (Patent 8,115,457 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01600 (Patent 7,834,605 B2)
`
`
`Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC d/b/a ON Semiconductor
`(“Petitioner”) and Power Integrations, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) requested a
`hearing in each of the above listed proceedings pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70. The requests are granted.
`These proceedings will be heard on November 15, 2017, beginning at
`9:30 AM Eastern Time on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA. We will hear IPR2016-01589 from
`9:30 AM to 11:00 AM (each party will have 45 minutes of argument time).
`Following a short recess, we will hear IPR2016-01600 from 11:15 AM to
`12:15 PM (each party will have 30 minutes of argument time). Following a
`recess for lunch, we will hold a consolidated hearing for IPR2016-01594 and
`IPR2016-01595 from 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM (each party will have 45 minutes
`of argument time).
`In each of the first two hearings (IPR2016-01589 and IPR2016-
`01600), Petitioner will argue first and may present arguments regarding the
`challenged claims on which we instituted trial and Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude, as appropriate, as well as arguments directed to Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend. Patent Owner then will have the opportunity to respond
`to Petitioner’s arguments. Next, Petitioner may use any time it has reserved
`for rebuttal to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments. Finally, Patent Owner
`may use any time it has reserved for rebuttal to respond only to Petitioner’s
`arguments regarding Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. No other arguments
`will be heard.
`In the consolidated hearing for IPR2016-01594 and IPR2016-01595,
`Petitioner will argue first and may present arguments regarding the
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01589 (Patent 6,249,876 B1)
`Cases IPR2016-01594, -01595 (Patent 8,115,457 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01600 (Patent 7,834,605 B2)
`
`challenged claims on which we instituted trial and Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude. Patent Owner then will have the opportunity to respond to
`Petitioner’s arguments. Finally, Petitioner may use any time it has reserved
`for rebuttal to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments. No other arguments
`will be heard.
`There is a strong public policy interest in making all information
`presented in these proceedings public, as the review determines the
`patentability of claims in an issued patent and thus affects the rights of the
`public. This policy is reflected in part, for example, in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1)
`and 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1), which provide that the file of any inter partes
`review or post grant review be made available to the public, except that any
`petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed shall, if
`accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending the outcome
`of the ruling on the motion. Although there is a motion to seal pending in
`IPR2016-01589, neither party has requested that the oral hearing be closed
`to the public. Accordingly, the hearings will be open to the public for in-
`person attendance, which will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
`basis.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter. A transcript for each hearing
`will constitute the official record of the hearing; the transcript for the third
`hearing will be filed in both IPR2016-01594 and IPR2016-01595. Any
`demonstrative exhibits must be served seven business days before the
`hearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and
`may not introduce new evidence or arguments. Instead, demonstrative
`exhibits should cite to evidence in the record. The parties are directed to St.
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01589 (Patent 6,249,876 B1)
`Cases IPR2016-01594, -01595 (Patent 8,115,457 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01600 (Patent 7,834,605 B2)
`
`Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the
`University of Michigan, Case No. IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014)
`(Paper 65), and CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2013-00033, Paper 118 (Oct. 23, 2013), regarding the appropriate
`content of demonstrative exhibits. Any issue regarding demonstrative
`exhibits should be resolved at least three days prior to the hearing by way of
`a joint telephone conference call to the Board. The parties are responsible
`for requesting such a conference sufficiently in advance of the hearing to
`accommodate this requirement. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits
`that is not timely presented will be considered waived. Demonstratives
`should be filed at the Board no later than two days before the hearing. A
`hard copy of the demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at
`the hearing.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment must be made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not timely
`received, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the oral
`hearing, although any counsel of record may make the actual presentation.
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01589 (Patent 6,249,876 B1)
`Cases IPR2016-01594, -01595 (Patent 8,115,457 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01600 (Patent 7,834,605 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Roger Fulghum
`Brett Thompsen
`Brian Oaks
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`roger.fulghum@bakerbotts.com
`brett.thompsen@bakerbotts.com
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Neil Warren
`John Phillips
`Howard Pollack
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`warren@fr.com
`phillips@fr.com
`pollack@fr.com
`
`5
`
`
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
