Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 27
`
`Date Entered: November 15, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
` EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01895
`Patent 7,697,492 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`
`Request for Oral Argument
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`The parties have requested an oral hearing for inter partes review
`
`proceeding IPR2016-01895 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 24, 26.
`
`Upon consideration by the panel of each party’s proposal, the parties’
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 27
`
`Date Entered: November 15, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
` EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01895
`Patent 7,697,492 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`
`Request for Oral Argument
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`The parties have requested an oral hearing for inter partes review
`
`proceeding IPR2016-01895 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 24, 26.
`
`Upon consideration by the panel of each party’s proposal, the parties’
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01895
`Patent 7,697,492 B2
`
`requests are granted and a hearing will proceed as described below.
`
`Each party will have thirty (30) minutes of total time to present
`
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent
`
`Owner’s claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Petitioner will,
`
`therefore, begin by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims and
`
`grounds for which the Board instituted trial in the proceeding. Patent Owner
`
`will then respond to Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner may reserve time to
`
`respond to arguments presented by Patent Owner. There is no motion to
`
`amend pending in the subject proceeding.
`
`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. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to
`
`make the oral hearing publically available via in-person attendance.
`
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time, on
`
`December 19, 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01895
`Patent 7,697,492 B2
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served seven (7)
`
`business days before the hearing. The parties may refer to St. Jude Medical,
`
`Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of
`
`Michigan, IPR2013-00041, 2–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), regarding
`
`the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. 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. Any issue
`
`regarding demonstrative exhibits should be resolved at least two (2) business
`
`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. 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 email demonstrative exhibits to
`
`the Board but shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in this case without
`
`prior authorization from the Board. 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 five (5) days in advance of the hearing date. The
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01895
`Patent 7,697,492 B2
`
`The parties also should note that at least one member of the panel will be
`
`attending the hearing electronically from a remote location, and that if a
`
`demonstrative is not made fully available or visible to the judge participating
`
`in 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 parties are also 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 and the ability of
`
`the judge participating in the hearing remotely to closely follow the
`
`presenter’s arguments.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01895
`Patent 7,697,492 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`James R. Batchelder
`Carolyn L. Redding
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`carolyn.redding@ropesgray.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory Gonsalves
`GONSALVES LAW FIRM
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Thomas Meagher
`MEAGHER EMANUEL LAKS GOLDBERG & LIAO, LLP
`tmeagher@meagheremanuel.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
