Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 43
`Entered: January, 24 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00249
`Patent 7,693,959 B2
`____________
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00349
`Patent 8,307,088 B21
`____________
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this caption. The parties should use
`the caption appropriate to the specific case.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 43
`Entered: January, 24 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00249
`Patent 7,693,959 B2
`____________
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00349
`Patent 8,307,088 B21
`____________
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this caption. The parties should use
`the caption appropriate to the specific case.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00249 (Patent 7,693,959 B2)
`IPR2017-00349 (Patent 8,307,088 B2)
`
`
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight” or “Petitioner”), Massachusetts
`Institute of Technology, and Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“MIT” and
`“Akamai” respectively, collectively “Patent Owners”) have requested Oral
`Hearings in IPR2017-00249 (“’249 IPR”) and IPR2017-00349 (“’349 IPR”)
`captioned above. ’249 IPR, Papers 38, 40; ’349 IPR, Papers 33, 34. The
`requests are granted.
`The Oral Hearings will commence at 1:30 PM Eastern Time, on
`Monday, February 12, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The Oral Hearings will be open to
`the public for in-person attendance, accommodated on a first-come, first-
`served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearings, and
`the reporter’s transcripts will constitute the official record of the Oral
`Hearings. The respective Oral Hearing transcripts will be entered in the
`record of each case.
`In the ’249 IPR, Petitioner requested forty-five (45) minutes.
`’249 IPR, Paper 38, 2. MIT did not request any specific amount of time.
`Each party will have forty-five minutes of argument time in the ’249 IPR.
`In the ’349 IPR, Petitioner requested forty-five (45) minutes for
`argument. ’349 IPR, Paper 33, 2. Akamai did not request any specific
`amount of time. Each party will have thirty minutes of argument time in the
`’349 IPR.
`The parties’ arguments for the ’249 case will be heard first, followed
`by their arguments in the ’349 IPR. Petitioner bears the burden of proof to
`show the unpatentability of the challenged patent claims. Therefore, in each
`hearing, Petitioner will proceed first with respect to the particular instituted
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00249 (Patent 7,693,959 B2)
`IPR2017-00349 (Patent 8,307,088 B2)
`
`grounds. Patent Owners then will respond to Petitioner and, in the ’249 IPR,
`MIT may make any arguments regarding its Motion to Exclude (Paper 41).
`Thereafter, Petitioner may use any reserved rebuttal time to address Patent
`Owners’ response and, in the ’249 IPR, the Motion to Exclude. On rebuttal,
`Petitioner will be restricted to only those matters raised by Patent Owners’
`response. In the ’249 IPR, MIT may reserve rebuttal time to respond to any
`arguments made by Petitioner during its rebuttal regarding the Motion to
`Exclude.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven 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, slip op. 2–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014)
`(Paper 65), regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. The
`parties shall meet and confer to discuss and resolve any objections to
`demonstrative exhibits. If any issues regarding demonstratives remain
`unresolved after the parties meet and confer, the parties shall file jointly a
`one-page list of objections to the demonstrative exhibits at least three
`business days before the hearing. For each objection, the list must identify
`with particularity the demonstratives subject to the objection and include a
`short, one-sentence statement explaining the objection. The panel will
`consider the objections and schedule a conference call if necessary.
`Otherwise, rulings on the objections will be reserved until the hearing or
`after the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits not presented
`timely will be considered waived. The parties are reminded that the
`demonstrative exhibits presented in this case are not evidence and are
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00249 (Patent 7,693,959 B2)
`IPR2017-00349 (Patent 8,307,088 B2)
`
`intended only to assist the parties in presenting their oral argument to the
`panel.
`Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties are not to file
`demonstrative exhibits, but shall email the demonstrative exhibits to
`Trials@uspto.gov at least two business days prior to the hearing. Each party
`shall provide a hard copy of its demonstratives to the court reporter at the
`hearing. At least one judge will be participating remotely via a
`videoconferencing device and will not be able to view the projection screen
`in the hearing room. Consequently, 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 transcript.
`The Board normally expects lead counsel for each party to be present
`at hearings, although any backup counsel may make the actual presentation,
`in whole or in part. Requests for audio-visual equipment must be made by
`e-mail at least five days in advance of the hearing date to Trials@uspto.gov,
`else the equipment may be unavailable.
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Oral Hearing shall commence at 1:30 PM
`Eastern Time, on Monday, February 12, 2018, on the ninth floor of
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order will be filed in each
`of the ’249 and ’349 IPRs.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00249 (Patent 7,693,959 B2)
`IPR2017-00349 (Patent 8,307,088 B2)
`
`PETITIONER (LIMELIGHT) IN IPR2017-00249 AND 349:
`Barry J. Schindler
`Heath J. Briggs
`Stephen Ullmer
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`SchindlerB@gtlaw.com
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com
`ullmers@gtlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER (MIT) IN IPR2017-00249:
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Peter M. Dichiara
`David H. Judson
`Vera Shmidt
`Mary Sooter
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`vera.shmidt@wilmerhale.com
`mail@davidjudson.com
`mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com
`PATENT OWNER (AKAMAI) IN IPR2017-00349:
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Peter M. Dichiara
`Owen K. Allen
`Adele Frankel
`David H. Judson
`Mary Sooter
`Vera Shmidt
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`owen.allen@wilmerhale.com
`adele.frankel@wilmerhale.com
`mail@davidjudson.com
`mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com
`vera.shmidt@wilmerhale.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
