Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
` Entered: December 21, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)1
`______________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 The Order concerns a matter applicable to all proceedings. We
`exercise our discretion to file a single Order in the cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this caption.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
` Entered: December 21, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)1
`______________
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 The Order concerns a matter applicable to all proceedings. We
`exercise our discretion to file a single Order in the cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this caption.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`
`In March 2017, we entered Decisions to Institute a trial
`proceedings in IPR2016-01737, IPR2016-01738, and IPR2016-01739.
`Paper 7.2 An Amended Scheduling Order in each case set the date for
`oral hearing, if requested by either party, as January 8, 2018. Paper
`34. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, both parties have requested oral
`hearing. Papers 41, 42. Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s requests for
`oral hearing are granted.
`Oral argument for this proceeding will be held on January 8, 2018
`on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern
`Time and it 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 three (3) business
`days in advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
`Each party will have ninety (90) minutes of total time to present
`arguments for all three cases. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of
`proof that the claims at issue are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner
`will proceed first to present its cases with regard to the challenged
`claims and grounds on which we instituted trial in IPR2016-01737,
`IPR2016-01738, and IPR2016-01739. Patent Owner then will argue its
`oppositions to Petitioner’s cases. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time.
`Although Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proof with regards
`
`2 All citations are to the record in IPR2016-01737.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`to its motion to amend claims in IPR2016-01737 and IPR2016-01738, it
`nonetheless, may reserve rebuttal time to respond only to Petitioner’s
`argument regarding the proposed substitute claims.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`The parties are reminded that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(7), a
`proponent of deposition testimony must file such testimony as an
`exhibit. The Board will not consider any deposition testimony that has
`not been so filed.
`Furthermore, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative
`exhibits must be served at least five (5) business days before the
`hearing. 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 shall
`serve objections to each other at least four (4) business days before the
`hearing. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith in an attempt
`to resolved objections. For any unresolved objections, the parties must,
`file the 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
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`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 parties shall file demonstrative exhibits into the records of
`these proceedings at least three (3) business days prior to the hearing.
`The parties also 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 Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at oral
`hearing, although any backup counsel may make the actual
`presentation, in 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.
`At least one judge will be participating remotely via a
`videoconferencing device and will not be able to view the projection
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`screen in the hearing room. Thus, overhead projectors or elmos are
`unavailable for 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 avoid confusion, and to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`reporter’s transcript.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01738 (Patent 8,880,862)
`Case IPR2016-01739 (Patent 8,880,862)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`Axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`Jeremy Monaldo
`jjm@fr.com
`
`Andrew Patrick
`patrick@fr.com
`
`Katherine Lutton
`lutton@fr.com
`
`James Huguenin-Love
`Huguenin-love@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph Edell
`Joe.edell.ipr@fischllp.com
`
`Richard Zhang
`Richard.zhang.ipr@fischllp.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
