Trials@uspto.gov Paper No: 28
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: June 14, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`WEATHERFORD /LAMB, INC., WEATHERFORD US, LP, and
`WEATHERFORD ARTIFICIAL LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01232 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01236 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order applies to both cases. The parties are not authorized to
`use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: June 14, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`WEATHERFORD /LAMB, INC., WEATHERFORD US, LP, and
`WEATHERFORD ARTIFICIAL LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01232 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01236 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order applies to both cases. The parties are not authorized to
`use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01232 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01236 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`Petitioner and Patent Owner request a hearing in these proceedings,
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). IPR2017-01232, Papers 22, 23; IPR2017-
`01236, Papers 22, 23. Petitioner requests 60 minutes of oral argument time
`for each party. IPR2017-01232, Paper 23, 1; IPR2017-01236, Paper 23, 1.
`Patent Owner requests 45 minutes of oral argument time for each party.
`IPR2017-01232, Paper 22, 1; IPR2017-01236, Paper 22, 1. Patent Owner
`also requests that it “be permitted to reserve up to fifteen (15) minutes of
`its[] oral argument time for after Petitioner’s reply to highlight issues in
`Petitioner’s reply that exceed the proper scope of a reply.” IPR2017-01232,
`Paper 22, 1; IPR2017-01236, Paper 22, 1
`The parties’ requests for a hearing are granted. One consolidated
`hearing will be conducted for both cases.
`The hearing will commence at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26,
`2018. Petitioner will have 60 minutes of total argument time. Patent Owner
`will also have 60 minutes of total argument time. We grant Patent Owner’s
`request for permission to reserve up 15 minutes to discuss allegedly
`improper new subject submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, provided that oral
`argument will proceed in the following order and with the following
`restrictions.
`First, Petitioner will present its case-in-chief with regard to the
`challenged claims on which basis we have instituted trial. Thereafter, Patent
`Owner may present responsive arguments to Petitioner’s case-in-chief.
`Subsequently, Petitioner may use remaining time it has to present rebuttal
`arguments. To the extent Petitioner’s rebuttal arguments address subject
`matter that Patent Owner contends was improperly newly introduced with
`Petitioner’s Reply, Patent Owner may use remaining time it has reserved
`(limited to 15 minutes) to address the subject matter Patent Owner contends
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01232 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01236 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`was improperly newly introduced with Petitioner’s Reply. Because
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof (see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)),
`Petitioner will then have the opportunity to use any remaining time it has
`(also limited to 15 minutes) to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding subject matter allegedly improperly introduced with Petitioner’s
`Reply.
`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. In-person attendance at the hearing will be accommodated on a
`first-come, first-served basis. If the parties have any concern about
`disclosing confidential information, they are to contact the Board no later
`than two days prior to the hearing to discuss the matter. The Board will
`provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s transcripts will
`constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served
`five business days prior to the hearing. The parties shall confer with each
`other regarding any objections to demonstrative exhibits in each proceeding,
`and email demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least two business days
`prior to the 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 two 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01232 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01236 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented
`timely will be considered waived.
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, but merely a visual aid
`for use at the hearing. Demonstrative exhibits may not introduce new
`evidence or arguments. Instead, demonstrative exhibits should cite to
`evidence already in the record. The parties are directed to CBS Interactive
`Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 2–5
`(PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118), regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits. 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 transcripts. The parties also should note that at
`least one member of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically
`from a remote location. If a demonstrative exhibit is not made fully
`available or visible to the judge participating remotely, that demonstrative
`exhibit will not be considered.
`The Board expects lead counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner to be
`present at the hearing, although any back-up counsel may make the actual
`presentation, in whole or in part. If lead counsel for a party will not be in
`attendance at the hearing, the Board should be notified no later than two
`days prior to the hearing.
`Requests for audio-visual equipment at the hearing are to be made
`five days in advance of the hearing date. The requests must be sent to
`Trials@uspto.gov. If the requests are not received timely, equipment may
`not be available on the day of the hearing. Further, if the parties have
`questions as to whether demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01232 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01236 (Patent 9,303,501 B2)
`and available to all of the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board
`at 571-272-9797.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jason Shapiro
`js@usiplaw.com
`
`Patrick Finnan
`pjf@usiplaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Hamad Hamad
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`
`Gregory Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.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
