Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 29
`
`Date Entered: November 15, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`I.M.L. SLU, and
` DUODECAD IT SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.À R.L.,
`ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`and RISER APPS LLC,1
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01656
`Patent 8,122,141 B2
`Case IPR2016-01658
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`11 DUODECAD IT SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.À R.L, et al. are present
`by virtue of the joinder of IPR2017-01179 to IPR2016-01658.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 29
`
`Date Entered: November 15, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`I.M.L. SLU, and
` DUODECAD IT SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.À R.L.,
`ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`and RISER APPS LLC,1
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01656
`Patent 8,122,141 B2
`Case IPR2016-01658
`Patent 8,364,839 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`11 DUODECAD IT SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.À R.L, et al. are present
`by virtue of the joinder of IPR2017-01179 to IPR2016-01658.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01656; IPR2016-01658
`Patent 8,122,141 B2; 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`Hearing on the Merits
`
`A trial in IPR2016-01656 and IPR2016-01658 was instituted on
`
`February 27, 2016. Paper 112 (“Decision to Institute”). A Scheduling Order
`
`entered at the same time set the date for oral hearing in each proceeding to
`
`November 30, 2017, if hearing is requested by the parties and granted by the
`
`Board. Paper 12 (“Scheduling Order”). On October 5, 2017, IPR2017-
`
`01179 brought by Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg S.À R.L., Accretive
`
`Technology Group, Inc., ICF Technology, Inc., and Riser Apps LLC
`
`(“Duodecad”) was terminated and joined to IPR2017-01658. In each
`
`proceeding, the parties have requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.70. The requests are GRANTED. We will conduct a consolidated
`
`hearing of IPR2016-01656 and IPR2016-01658.
`
`Each party will have 45 minutes of total argument time. I.M.L. SLU
`
`(and for purposes of IPR2016-01658 Duodecad) (“Petitioner”) bears the
`
`ultimate burden of proof that the claims at issue in this review are
`
`unpatentable. Therefore, at oral hearing Petitioner will proceed first to
`
`present its case with regard to the challenged claims on which basis we
`
`instituted trial. Thereafter, WAG Acquisition, LLC (“Patent Owner”) will
`
`argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case. Petitioner may then use any time
`
`Petitioner reserved to rebut to Patent Owner’s opposition. Finally, Patent
`
`Owner may use any time it reserved solely to rebut Petitioner’s opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend.
`
`Hearing on Motion For Discovery
`
`
`2 Paper numbers are provided for IPR2016-01656, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01656; IPR2016-01658
`Patent 8,122,141 B2; 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`In each proceeding Patent Owner has moved for discovery on matters
`
`relating to real party-in-interest issues. Although we have conducted several
`
`telephone conferences encouraging the parties to agree to appropriate
`
`discovery, the parties appear to have been unable to resolve issues
`
`concerning the scope of discovery. Therefore, following the hearing on the
`
`merits we will hear up to 15 minutes of argument from each side concerning
`
`the scope of discovery. Patent Owner has the burden of persuasion on its
`
`motion and will argue first, Petitioner may then oppose, and Patent Owner
`
`may use any time it reserved to rebut Petitioner’s Opposition. We remind
`
`the parties of our earlier guidance that discovery in inter partes review is
`
`more narrow than that available in district court and must be tailored to the
`
`specific real party-in-interest issue. We also remind the parties that, having
`
`availed itself of this forum, Petitioner is required to make full disclosure in
`
`real party-in-interest matters. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`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. Therefore the hearing will be open to the public
`
`for in-person attendance. Should the hearing on Patent Owner’s discovery
`
`motion require discussion of confidential information, we will address the
`
`matter at that time.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01656; IPR2016-01658
`Patent 8,122,141 B2; 8,364,839 B2
`
`
`The hearings will commence at 1:30 PM Eastern Time on November
`
`30, 2017, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`
`Alexandria, Virginia. In-person attendance will be accommodated on a first
`
`come first serve basis.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. 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.
`
`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 are to be made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01656; IPR2016-01658
`Patent 8,122,141 B2; 8,364,839 B2
`
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received
`
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of 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 for each proceeding will be attending the hearings 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
`
`and available to all of the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board
`
`at 571-272-9797.
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`
`at the oral hearing. However, lead or backup counsel 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01656; IPR2016-01658
`Patent 8,122,141 B2; 8,364,839 B2
`
`PETITIONER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Steven Yovits
`Beth Jacob
`KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
`syovits@kelleydrye.com
`bjacob@kelleydrye.com
`
`Kevin O'Brien
`Matt Dushek
`Richard Wells
`BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
`kevin.obrien@bakermckenzie.com
`matt.dushek@bakermckenzie.com
`richard.wells@bakermckenzie.com
`
`Brian Bodine
`Alan Minsk
`Adriane Scola
`LANE POWELL PC
`bodineb@lanepowell.com
`minska@lanepowell.com
`scolaa@lanepowell.com
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Ronald Abramson
`Ari Jaffess
`Mord Lewis
`LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC
`ronald.abramson@lbkmlaw.com
`ari.jaffess@lbkmlaw.com
`michael.lewis@lbkmlaw.com
`
`Ernest Buff
`ERNEST D. BUFF & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
`ebuff@edbuff.com
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
