throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 40
`Entered: February 16, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00315 Patent 8,929,965 B2
`Case IPR2017-00317 Patent 8,989,830 B2
`Case IPR2017-00318 Patent 8,886,269 B2
`Case IPR2017-00319 Patent 8,923,941 B2
` Case IPR2017-00321 Patent 8,923,941 B21,2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion to
`issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties are not authorized
`to use a multiple case caption.
`2 Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc. cases have been joined to the instant cases.
`Specifically, Case IPR2017-01552 has been joined with Case IPR2017-
`00315; Case IPR2017-01553 has been joined with Case IPR2017-00317;
`Case IPR2017-01554 has been joined with Case IPR2017-00318; Case
`IPR2017-01555 has been joined with Case IPR2017-00319; and Case
`IPR2017-01556 has been joined with Case IPR2017-00321.
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`An inter partes review was instituted in each of the above-captioned
`proceedings. Paper 9.3 Petitioner and Patent Owner requested an oral
`hearing in each of the proceedings pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). Papers
`34, 35. Petitioner requested twenty (20) minutes for oral argument per side
`per proceeding. Paper 35, 2. Petitioner also requested that the parties
`address Cases IPR2017-00317/-00318 and Cases IPR2017-00319/-00321,
`respectively, in consolidated hearings in light of similarities in the patents,
`asserted prior art, and commonality of arguments and that the court reporter
`produce a single transcript for each consolidated hearing. Id. at 1–2.
`Patent Owner requested a call to discuss the oral hearings, which was
`conducted on February 15, 2017, during which Patent Owner agreed with
`addressing Cases IPR2017-00317/-00318 and Cases IPR2017-00319/-00321
`in consolidated hearings. However, Patent Owner requested additional time
`for the hearings. Patent Owner requested thirty (30) minutes per side per
`proceeding, arguing that Cases IPR2017-00317/-00318, in particular,
`required additional hearing time because these cases involve some differing
`prior art and have pending motions to amend. Petitioner opposed the request
`for additional time, arguing that each of the cases has significant issue
`overlap, and the Board has the discretion to extend oral hearing time if it
`becomes necessary at the time of the hearings.
`
`
`3 We refer to the papers and exhibits filed in Case IPR2017-00315 as
`representative.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`We have reviewed the issues that the parties have addressed in the
`papers for each proceeding, and agree with the parties that it is more
`efficient to address Cases IPR2017-00317/-00318 and Cases IPR2017-
`00319/-00321 in consolidated hearings. Each party will be permitted twenty
`(20) minutes of oral argument per side per proceeding in Cases IPR2017-
`00315, IPR2017-00319, and IPR2017-00321, and thirty (30) minutes of oral
`argument per side per proceeding will be permitted in the Cases IPR2017-
`00317 and IPR2017-00318 cases. The hearings will commence at 11:00
`AM Eastern Time, on Tuesday, February 27, 2018, and will proceed in this
`order:
`IPR2017-00315
`11:00 AM-11:40 AM
`IPR2017-00319/-00321
`11:45 AM-1:05 PM
`Lunch
`1:05 PM-2:00 PM
`IPR2017-00317/-00318
`2:00 PM-4:00 PM
`For each hearing, Petitioner will first present its case(s) as to the
`challenged claims and grounds with respect to which we instituted trials and
`may also address the motion(s) to amend. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal
`time. Petitioner may address the patentability of substitute claims, presented
`in a motion to amend (if applicable) in their initial presentation, and not only
`in rebuttal after Patent Owner raises its motion to amend in its presentation.
`Thereafter, Patent Owners will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case(s)
`and its motion(s) to amend. Petitioner then may use any time it reserved to
`rebut Patent Owner’s opposition.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`The oral hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance,
`on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia. Currently, the hearing is scheduled to be held in Hearing Room A.
`Space in the hearing room is limited, and any attendees beyond three per
`party (including any attorneys who may be appearing) will be
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`At least four (4) business days prior to the oral arguments, each party
`shall serve on the other party any demonstrative exhibit(s) it intends to use
`during the oral arguments and file the demonstrative exhibit(s) before the
`time of the oral arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). The parties also shall
`provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least four (4) business
`days prior to the oral arguments by e-mailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, but merely a visual aid at the
`oral arguments. Demonstrative exhibits may not introduce new
`evidence or raise new arguments, but instead should cite to evidence in
`the record. 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) and CBS Interactive Inc.
`v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013)
`(Paper 118), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`exhibits.
`The parties shall confer and attempt to resolve any objections to
`demonstratives prior to involving the Board.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`For any issue regarding the proposed demonstrative exhibits that
`cannot be resolved after conferring with the opposing party, the parties may
`file jointly a one-page list of objections at least two (2) business days prior
`to the date of the hearing. Any such list should identify with particularity
`which demonstrative exhibit(s) is (are) subject to objection and include a
`short statement (no more than one concise sentence) of the reason for each
`objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`We will consider the objections and schedule a conference call, if
`necessary, to discuss them. Otherwise, we may strike demonstrative exhibits
`that we find objectionable or reserve ruling on the objections until the
`hearing or after the hearing. Any objection to a demonstrative exhibit that is
`not presented in a timely-filed list will be considered waived. Regardless of
`any objections raised by the parties, the Board may expunge any
`demonstrative exhibits that it finds excessive in number or content.
`To aid in the preparation of an accurate transcript, each party shall
`provide paper copies of its demonstratives to the court reporter on the day of
`the oral arguments. Such paper copies shall not become part of the record of
`this proceeding. The parties are reminded that each presenter must identify
`clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen
`number), paper, or exhibit referenced during the oral arguments to ensure the
`clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
`Judge James Arpin (Denver) will be attending each hearing
`electronically and will only have access to the demonstratives exhibits
`provided in advance in the manner described above. If a demonstrative
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`exhibit is not made available to the Board in the manner described above,
`that demonstrative exhibit 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 Arpin.
`Therefore, each presenter must identify with specificity the location of any
`projected image in the record. Because of limitations on the audio
`transmission systems in our hearing rooms, presenters may speak only when
`standing at the hearing room podium.
`We expect 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 the oral
`hearing, we should be notified via email communications no later than two
`(2) business days prior to the oral hearing.
`Lead counsel and back-up counsel may use portable computers in the
`hearing room at the counsel tables and at the hearing room lectern, but such
`computers may not be used to record or transmit audio or video from the
`hearing. Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment should be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special
`equipment or special accommodations at the hearing may not be honored
`unless presented in a separate communication directed to the above e-mail
`address not less than five (5) days before the oral arguments. If the request
`is not received timely, the equipment or accommodations may not be
`available on the day of the oral arguments.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`ORDER
`It is ORDERED that oral arguments for these proceedings will
`commence at 11:00 AM Eastern Time, on Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at
`the Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, ninth floor, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Michael D. Specht
`Michelle K. Holoubek
`Jason Fitzsimmons
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`holoubek@skgf.com
`jfitzsimmons-ptab@skgf.com
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Nicholas C Kliewer
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`
`8
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket