Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: June 5, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
` IPR2017-01190 (Patent 6,717,518 B1)1
`IPR2017-01218 (Patent 8,983,134 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in each of these cases.
`Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each
`case. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in
`any subsequent papers without prior authorization.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: June 5, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
` IPR2017-01190 (Patent 6,717,518 B1)1
`IPR2017-01218 (Patent 8,983,134 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in each of these cases.
`Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each
`case. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in
`any subsequent papers without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01190 (Patent 6,717,518 B1)
`IPR2017-01218 (Patent 8,983,134 B2)
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`An inter partes review was instituted in each of these proceedings.
`Paper 11.2 Petitioner and Patent Owner requested an oral hearing in each of
`the proceedings pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). Papers 26, 27. Petitioner
`requested forty-five (45) minutes for argument in each proceeding, and
`Patent Owner requested thirty (30) minutes for each proceeding. See id. We
`have reviewed the issues that the parties intend to address for each
`proceeding, and each party will be permitted thirty (30) minutes per
`proceeding to present arguments.
`The hearing will commence at 10:00 AM Eastern Time, on Friday,
`June 29, 2018. 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. 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.
`The respective inter partes reviews will be addressed in order,
`commencing with Case IPR2017-01190. For the hearing in each
`proceeding, Petitioner will first present its case as to the challenged claims
`and grounds with respect to which we instituted trial. Petitioner may reserve
`rebuttal time. Thereafter, Patent Owner will argue its opposition to
`Petitioner’s case. Petitioner then may use any time it reserved for rebuttal,
`responding to Patent Owner’s specific arguments presented at the oral
`hearing.
`
`
`2 Citations are to Case IPR2017-01190 as representative, unless otherwise
`noted or ordered.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01190 (Patent 6,717,518 B1)
`IPR2017-01218 (Patent 8,983,134 B2)
`
`
`At least seven (7) 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. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). The parties shall
`confer with each other regarding any objections to demonstrative exhibits,
`and file 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.
`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 should attempt to resolve any objections to demonstratives
`prior to involving the Board. For any issue that cannot be resolved after
`conferring with the opposing party, the parties may email jointly to
`Trials@uspto.gov 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 short 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 may
`consider the objections at or after the hearing. Any unresolved objections to
`demonstrative exhibits not timely presented will be considered waived.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01190 (Patent 6,717,518 B1)
`IPR2017-01218 (Patent 8,983,134 B2)
`
`
`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.
`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. The
`parties are reminded to direct any requests for specialized audio-visual
`equipment to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will 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 may not be available on the
`day of the oral arguments.
`
`ORDER
`It is ORDERED that oral arguments for these proceedings shall take
`place beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern Time, on Friday, June 29, 2018 at the
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, ninth floor, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01190 (Patent 6,717,518 B1)
`IPR2017-01218 (Patent 8,983,134 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`John Kappos
`Nick Whilt
`Brian M. Cook
`Marc Pensabene
`Clarence Rowland
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`jkappos@omm.com
`nwhilt@omm.com
`bcook@omm.com
`mpensabene@omm.com
`crowland@omm.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Chris Coulson
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`ccoulson@kenyon.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
