Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 22
`
`
` Entered: September 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHANBOND LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 22
`
`
` Entered: September 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHANBOND LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`On March 3, 2017, we instituted the instant inter partes review
`(Paper 10), and issued a Scheduling Order (Paper 11), which set the date for
`oral hearing to November 1, 2017, if oral hearing is requested by either party
`and granted by the Board. Both parties request an oral hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 20 and 21. We grant those requests.
`The parties each request 45 minutes of time to present their argument.
`Paper 20, 1; Paper 21, 1. Upon review of the record, we grant a total of
`90 minutes of oral argument time, with 45 minutes allocated to each party.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time, on
`November 1, 2017, and will be conducted at the USPTO central
`headquarters located in Alexandria, Virginia. Each party will have
`45 minutes of total time to present its arguments. At the oral hearing,
`Petitioner will proceed first to present its case as to the challenged claims
`and instituted grounds of unpatentability. Thereafter, Patent Owner will
`respond to Petitioner’s case. After that, Petitioner will make use of the rest
`of its time responding to Patent Owner’s presentation on all matters.
`Petitioner must confine any such rebuttal to subject matter expressly
`addressed during Patent Owner’s argument.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance at the
`USPTO central headquarters, the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314. In-person attendance 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served no
`later than seven business days before the hearing date. They shall be filed
`with the Board no later than the time of oral argument. Because the hearing
`will be open to the public, any demonstrative exhibits shall not contain any
`information alleged to be confidential by either party. The parties must
`initiate a conference call with the Board at least two business days prior to
`the hearing to resolve any dispute over the propriety of each party’s
`demonstrative exhibits. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical,
`Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of
`Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. See
`also CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, Case
`IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118) (The Board has the
`discretion to limit the parties’ demonstratives to pages in the record should
`there be no easy resolution to objections over demonstratives.).
`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 is unable to attend the oral
`argument, the Board should be notified via a joint telephone conference call
`no later than two business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the
`matter.
`Any requests regarding special equipment or needs, such as for audio
`visual equipment, should be directed to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for
`audio-visual equipment are to be made at least five business days in advance
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`of the hearing date. Judge Harlow will participate in the hearing remotely,
`from Denver, Colorado. If a demonstrative is not made available to the
`Board in the manner indicated above, that demonstrative may not be
`available to each of the judges during the hearing and may not be
`considered. Further, images projected, using audio visual equipment in
`Alexandria, will not be visible to Judge Harlow in Denver. Because of
`limitations on the audio transmission systems in our hearing rooms, the
`presenter may speak only when standing at the hearing room podium. 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. 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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Wayne Stacy
`Kathryn Juffa
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`katie.juffa@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Whitman
`Timothy Rousseau
`Andrea Pacelli
`John Petrsoric
`MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP
`robert.whitman@mishcon.com
`tim.rousseau@mishcon.com
`andrea.pacelli@mishcon.com
`john.petrsoric@mishcon.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
