`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: January 12, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ZTE (USA) INC., ZTE CORPORATION,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-007141
`Patent 6,470,399 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01808 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399 B1
`
`
`We instituted inter partes review in this proceeding on June 21, 2017
`(Paper 10) and set the oral hearing date to February 12, 2018 (Paper 11, 6).
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, Patent Owner requests an oral hearing,
`requesting a telephonic argument, as overlapping issues were addressed in
`prior oral hearings in several related cases. Paper 24. Petitioner did not file
`a paper requesting oral hearing. Patent Owner’s request is granted.
`A telephonic oral hearing will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on
`February 13, 2018. The oral hearing date is changed from February 12,
`2018, to February 13, 2018, for efficiency.
`The Board will forward the dial-in information prior to the oral
`hearing via electronic mail. The Board also will provide a court reporter for
`the hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of
`the hearing. As proposed by Patent Owner, each party will have twenty
`minutes of total time to present arguments.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s
`claims at issue are unpatentable. Therefore, at oral hearing Petitioner will
`proceed first to present its case with respect to the challenged claims and
`grounds, on which the Board instituted the inter partes review. Thereafter,
`Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s case. After that, Petitioner may
`make use of any remainder of its time to address Patent Owner’s responsive
`presentation.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven business days prior to the hearing. The parties shall confer with
`each other regarding any objections to demonstrative exhibits, and filed
`demonstrative exhibits with the Board, as a separate exhibit in accordance
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63, at least five business days prior to the hearing.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399 B1
`
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, but merely a visual aid for use
`during the oral hearing. For any issue that cannot be resolved after
`conferring with the opposing party, the parties may file jointly a one-page
`list of objections at least five business days prior to the hearing. The list
`should identify with particularity which demonstrative exhibits are subject to
`objection and include a short statement (no more than one 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.
`Otherwise, we will reserve ruling on the objections until the hearing or after
`the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented
`timely will be considered waived.
`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. The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be on
`the telephone call for the oral hearing, although any backup counsel may
`make the actual presentation, in whole or in part. If lead counsel for either
`party is unable to participate in the telephonic oral hearing, the Board should
`be notified via a joint telephone conference call no later than five business
`days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00714
`Patent 6,470,399 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Carrier Beyer
`Nikola Colic
`Brian Rupp
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`carrier.beyer@dbr.com
`nick.colic@dbr.com
`brian.rupp@dbr.com
`
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`Scott Miller
`Darren Franklin
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`smiller@sheppardmullin.com
`dfranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas Peters
`Paul Henkelmann
`Joseph Marinelli
`Nicole Little
`FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`phenkelmann@fitcheven.com
`jmarinelli@fitcheven.com
`nlittle@fitcheven.com
`
`Anthony Meola
`SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS, LLP
`ameola@iplawusa.com
`
`
`4
`
`