`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Date: February 27, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00597
`Patent 8,571,194 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEN B. BARRETT, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00597
`Patent 8,571,194 B2
`
`
`The parties filed requests for oral argument. Papers 15, 16. The hearing will
`commence at 10:00 AM Eastern Time, on Tuesday, March 20, 2018. The hearing
`will be open to the public for in-person attendance, on the ninth floor of Madison
`Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.1 Space in the hearing
`room is limited, and any attendees beyond five per party (including any attorneys
`who may be appearing) will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`Each party will have thirty (30) minutes of total time to present arguments.
`Petitioner will proceed first, Patent Owner thereafter will respond, and Petitioner
`may rebut if it has time remaining. The Board will provide a court reporter for the
`hearings, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the
`hearings.
`At least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing, each party shall serve
`on the other party (and not file) any demonstrative it intends to use during the
`hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). The parties should attempt to resolve any
`objections to demonstratives prior to involving the Board. If any objections
`remain, a party may raise them during the hearing as part of its allotted argument
`time. At least three (3) business days prior to the hearing, the parties shall provide
`the demonstratives to the Board by emailing them in portable document format
`(.pdf) to Trials@uspto.gov. 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
`appropriate content of demonstratives.
`
`
`1 Regrettably, the panel does not grant Patent Owner’s request for the oral
`argument to occur in Dallas, Texas, as all judges on the panel work at the
`Alexandria, Virginia site.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00597
`Patent 8,571,194 B2
`
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at hearing,
`although any backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in whole or in part.
`If any lead counsel will not be in attendance at the hearing, the Board should be
`notified via a joint telephone conference call no later than two days prior to the
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00597
`Patent 8,571,194 B2
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Theodore M. Foster
`Dina Blikshteyn
`Jamie H. McDole
`HAYNES and BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`dina.blikshteyn.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`brett.mangrum@unilocusa.com
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Ryan Loveless
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`
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
