Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: January, 25 2018
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00176 (Patent 7,161,506 C2)1
`Case IPR2017-00179 (Patent 9,054,728 B2)2
`____________
`
`
`Before JASON J. CHUNG, SCOTT C. MOORE, SHEILA F. MCSHANE,
`and KAMRAN JIVANI Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00806 has been consolidated with IPR2017-00176. Case
`IPR2017-01688 has been joined with IPR2017-00176. The panel for these
`three cases consists of Judges Chung, Moore, and MCShane. For purposes
`of this order, we refer to paper numbers from IPR2017-00176. The parties
`are not permitted to use this caption.
`2 Case IPR2017-00808 has been consolidated with IPR2017-00179. Case
`IPR2017-01690 has been joined with IPR2017-00179. The panel for these
`three cases consists of Judges Chung, Moore, and Jivani.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: January, 25 2018
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00176 (Patent 7,161,506 C2)1
`Case IPR2017-00179 (Patent 9,054,728 B2)2
`____________
`
`
`Before JASON J. CHUNG, SCOTT C. MOORE, SHEILA F. MCSHANE,
`and KAMRAN JIVANI Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00806 has been consolidated with IPR2017-00176. Case
`IPR2017-01688 has been joined with IPR2017-00176. The panel for these
`three cases consists of Judges Chung, Moore, and MCShane. For purposes
`of this order, we refer to paper numbers from IPR2017-00176. The parties
`are not permitted to use this caption.
`2 Case IPR2017-00808 has been consolidated with IPR2017-00179. Case
`IPR2017-01690 has been joined with IPR2017-00179. The panel for these
`three cases consists of Judges Chung, Moore, and Jivani.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00176 (Patent 7,161,506 C2)
`Case IPR2017-00179 (Patent 9,054,728 B2)
`
`
`Teradata Operations, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Realtime Data LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) request an Oral Hearing in the above captioned matters.
`Papers 35, 36. Petitioner also requests moving the hearing date from
`February 26, 2018 to February 20, 2018. Paper 35, 4. The requests are
`granted.
`The Oral Hearing in the above-captioned matters will commence at
`approximately 2:15 PM Eastern Time, on Tuesday, February 20, 2018, in
`Hearing Room B, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing 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 hearing, and the reporter’s
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. We will enter the
`hearing transcript in the record of each case.
`Both parties request 45 minutes of argument for each side cumulative
`for all six proceedings listed in footnotes 1 and 2 supra. Paper 35, 2–3;
`Paper 36, 2–3. Accordingly, each party will have forty-five minutes of
`argument.
`Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to show the unpatentability
`of the challenged patent claims. Therefore, Petitioner will proceed first with
`respect to the particular instituted grounds. Patent Owner then will respond
`to Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner may use any reserved rebuttal time to
`address Patent Owner’s response.
`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. Board of Regents of the
`University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041, slip op. 2–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00176 (Patent 7,161,506 C2)
`Case IPR2017-00179 (Patent 9,054,728 B2)
`
`(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 not authorized to file
`their demonstratives unless instructed by the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5.
`The parties are reminded that the demonstrative exhibits presented in this
`case are not evidence and are intended only to assist the parties in presenting
`their oral argument to the panel.
`Each party also shall email its 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.
`Because argument on the cases listed in footnotes 1 and 2 will be
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00176 (Patent 7,161,506 C2)
`Case IPR2017-00179 (Patent 9,054,728 B2)
`
`heard together, all four judges listed in footnotes 1 and 2 will participate in
`the oral hearing. The presence of four judges is not an indication of an
`expanded panel. Rather, each judge will decide only the cases noted.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the
`hearing, 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.
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Oral Hearing shall commence
`at approximately 2:15 PM Eastern Time, on Tuesday February 20, 2018,
`in Hearing Room B, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00176 (Patent 7,161,506 C2)
`Case IPR2017-00179 (Patent 9,054,728 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot Williams
`Jamie Lynn
`Andrew Wilson
`Michelle Eber
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com
`andrew.wilson@bakerbotts.com
`michelle.eber@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Rothwell
`Kayvan Noroozi
`NOROOZI PC
`william@noroozipc.com
`kayvan@noroozipc.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
