Trials@uspto.gov
`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: October 12, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order pertains to both of these cases. Therefore, we exercise our
`discretion to issue a single Order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: October 12, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order pertains to both of these cases. Therefore, we exercise our
`discretion to issue a single Order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`
`
`The Scheduling Orders for the above-listed cases set the date for the
`oral hearing as November 6, 2017. Paper 13, 6.2 Each party requested an
`oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 28, 29. The parties’
`requests for an oral hearing are granted.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM ET on November 6, 2017, on
`the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance
`that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. 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 a total of sixty (60) minutes to present any
`arguments relating to the above-listed cases. Petitioner bears the ultimate
`burden of proof that the claims under review in these cases are unpatentable.
`Therefore, Petitioner will proceed first, and Patent Owner will follow.
`Petitioner may then use any time Petitioner reserved for rebuttal. The parties
`are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically any
`demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the
`hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript and the
`ability of all judges to follow the presenter’s arguments.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall serve any demonstrative
`exhibits upon each other at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing.
`The parties also shall provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least
`two (2) business days prior to the hearing by emailing them to
`Trials@uspto.gov. The parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in
`this case without prior authorization. The parties also should note that at
`
`2 This Order cites to the record of IPR2016-01638.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`
`least one member of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically
`from a remote location and that, if a demonstrative is not submitted by email
`prior to the hearing, it may not be fully available or visible to any judges
`attending remotely. The parties also should note that a panel member
`appearing remotely will not be able to hear the parties unless they speak into
`the microphone at the podium. If the parties have questions as to whether
`demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently available and visible to all of
`the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board.
`We expect the parties will meet and confer in good faith to resolve
`any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If such objections cannot be
`resolved, the parties must initiate a conference call with the Board at least
`two (2) business days prior to the hearing to resolve any objections to
`demonstrative exhibits. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that are not
`timely presented at least two (2) business days prior to the hearing will be
`considered waived.
`We expect lead counsel for each party to attend the hearing. Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,758 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`However, any counsel of record may present the party’s arguments. If either
`party anticipates that its lead counsel will not attend the hearing, the parties
`shall request and make themselves available for a conference call with the
`Board to occur no later than two (2) business days prior to the hearing to
`discuss the reasons for that lead counsel’s absence.
`Any requests regarding special equipment or needs, such as 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 directed to the identified email address not less than five (5)
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`
`business days before the hearing.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John Flock
`Paul T. Qualey
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`johnflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`paulqualey@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daphne Burton
`BURTON IP LAW GROUP
`dburton@burtoniplaw.com
`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2dgm@knobbe.com
`
`Thomas D. Robbins
`tom@trpatents.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
