`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL INC.; EMC CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO.; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA
`OPERATIONS, INC.; and VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2017-001761
`Patent No. 7,161,506
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00806 has been consolidated with this proceeding. Case
`
`IPR2017-01688 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00176 & -00806
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the Board’s Scheduling Orders
`
`(IPR2017-00176, Paper 20; IPR2017-00806, Paper 20), Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests oral argument on the issues raised in the Petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,161,506, Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Responses, Patent Owner’s Responses, and Petitioners’ Replies to Patent
`
`Owner’s Responses.
`
`Per the Board’s Scheduling Orders, oral argument is currently set for
`
`the same day in these proceedings and two related proceedings, IPR2017-
`
`00179 and -00808 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728. As discussed in
`
`more detail below, given the overlap of issues, the Parties agree that a single
`
`oral argument should be scheduled across all four proceedings.
`
`Patent Owner believes that, at that hearing, the Petitioners should
`
`make a single opening and rebuttal presentation, but may divide the time
`
`between the challenged patents and various Petitioner Parties as they see fit;
`
`similarly, Patent Owner will give a single response, but may divide its time
`
`between the challenged patents and Petitioner arguments as it sees fit. Patent
`
`Owner requests 45 minutes per side for the oral argument, but to the extent
`
`the Board wishes to allocate additional oral hearing time, Patent Owner does
`
`not object provided that Patent Owner receive corresponding additional
`
`time.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00176 & -00806
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`The issues to be argued with respect to the ’506 patent are:
`
`• The instituted grounds of unpatentability, namely whether:
`
`o claims 104 and 105 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`in view of Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian;
`
`• Any issues identified in Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument;
`
`• Rebuttal to Petitioners’ presentation on all matters;
`
`• Any other issues raised in papers filed in this proceeding, including
`
`issues raised in papers yet to be filed, such as Motions to Exclude; and
`
`• Any other outstanding motions and pleadings, and other issues that
`
`the Board deems necessary for issuing a Final Written Decision.
`
`Patent Owner also requests the ability to use audio visual equipment
`
`to display possible demonstratives and exhibits, including the use of a
`
`computer, projector, and screen.
`
`Coordination with Co-pending Realtime Data IPRs
`
`In addition, Patent Owner and Petitioner are parties to multiple IPRs
`
`for which oral arguments are currently scheduled to occur in February
`
`2018. First, IPR2017-00557 (with Petitioner Teradata Operations, Inc.)
`
`challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,358,867 B2 (“the ’867 IPR”). Second, both
`
`IPR2017-00176 (with Petitioners Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, Hewlett-
`
`Packard Enterprise Co., and Veritas Technologies LLC) and IPR2017-00806
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00176 & -00806
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`(with Petitioner Teradata Operations, Inc.) challenge U.S. Patent 7,161,506
`
`C2 (collectively “the ’506 IPRs”). The ’506 IPRs have been consolidated for
`
`briefing and scheduling by order of the Board. (IPR2017-00176, Paper 28).
`
`Third, both IPR2017-00179 (with Petitioners Dell Inc., EMC Corporation,
`
`Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co., and Veritas Technologies LLC) and
`
`IPR2017-00808 (with Petitioner Teradata Operations, Inc.) challenge U.S.
`
`Patent 9,054,728 B2 (collectively “the ’728 IPRs”). The ’728 IPRs have also
`
`been consolidated for briefing and scheduling. (IPR2017-00179, Paper 29).
`
`Petitioners and Patent Owner agree that, given the overlap in issues among
`
`the four ’506 and ’728 IPRs, only one oral hearing is needed, provided that
`
`each side has at least 45 minutes of time for argument.
`
`The ’867 IPR is currently set for oral hearing on February 20, 2018.
`
`(IPR2017-00557, Paper 15). The remainder of the proceedings are set for
`
`oral hearing on February 26, 2018. (See IPR2017-00176, Paper 26;
`
`IPR2017-00176, Paper 28; IPR2017-00179, Paper 27; IPR2017-00179,
`
`Paper 29). For convenience and “the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution
`
`of” these proceedings, 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), and for the convenience of
`
`Patent Owner and Teradata and their counsel, the parties jointly request that
`
`the Board schedule both oral arguments to occur on February 20, 2018 (i.e.,
`
`one oral argument for IPR2017-00557, and a second, separate oral argument
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00176 & -00806
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`to cover IPR2017-00176, IPR2017-00179, IPR2017-00806, and IPR2017-
`
`00808). Patent Owner and all Petitioners in the above-identified IPRs have
`
`indicated that they agree to this request and intend to file a substantially
`
`similar request in their respective proceedings.
`
`If the Board cannot accommodate this request, Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioners will be prepared to proceed on the originally-scheduled hearing
`
`dates.
`
`
`
`Date: January 22, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William Rothwell
`
`William P. Rothwell, Reg. No. 72,522
`NOROOZI PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`
`Kayvan B. Noroozi, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`NOROOZI PC
`1299 Ocean Ave., Suite 450
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00176 & -00806
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served
`
`electronically via e-mail on January 22, 2018, to the following counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner:
`
`IPR2017-00176
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Garth A. Winn
`Vivek V. Krishnan
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`Robert Steinberg
`
`
`IPR2017-00806
`Eliot D. Williams
`Jamie R. Lynn
`Andrew Wilson
`Michelle Eber
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 22, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00176@winston.com
`
`garth.winn@klarquist.com
`
`Lisa.Nguyen@lw.com
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`
`
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com
`andrew.wilson@bakerbotts.com
`michelle.eber@bakerbotts.com
`DLTeradata@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William Rothwell
`
`William P. Rothwell, Reg. No. 72,522
`NOROOZI PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`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
