Paper: 22
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: October 3, 2018
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`HEARING ORDER
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`The parties have requested a consolidated oral hearing in the captioned
`proceedings, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. See IPR2017-01797, Papers 20, 22;
`IPR2017-01798, Papers 20, 22; IPR2017-01799, Papers 27, 29; IPR2017-01800,
`Papers 22, 24; IPR2017-01801, Papers 19, 21; IPR2017-01802, Papers 19, 21. We
`grant the parties’ request.
`The hearing for these proceedings will commence at 11 am Central Time
`on October 30, 2018. Petitioner and Patent Owner each will have one hour of
`argument time in total for the captioned cases. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden
`of proof that the claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, at oral
`argument, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case regarding the challenged
`patent claims and the grounds on which the Board instituted trial. Petitioner may
`reserve some (but not more than half) of its argument time to respond to arguments
`presented by the Patent Owner. After Petitioner’s initial presentation, Patent
`Owner will be given an opportunity to respond and also may reserve some of its
`argument time for sur-rebuttal. Thereafter, Petitioner may use any reserved time to
`reply to Patent Owner’s presentation, and finally, Patent Owner may present a brief
`sur-rebuttal if it has reserved time. New arguments not previously presented in the
`parties’ substantive papers in these proceeding shall not be raised at oral hearing,
`and no live testimony from any witness will be taken at the oral argument.
`The hearing will be conducted at the Texas Regional Office in Room 155,
`first floor of 207 S. Houston Street, Dallas Texas 75202. 1 The hearing will be
`
`
`1 Information concerning the Texas Regional Office can be found in the USPTO
`website at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/dallas-texas.
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`open to the public for in-person attendance, which will be accommodated on a
`first-come, first-served basis. The parties are advised that the hearing room has
`limited capacity. Therefore, to facilitate access to the regional-office hearing
`room, each party is asked to email the Board (Trials@uspto.gov), at least five
`business days prior to the hearing, indicating the number of attendees for its side
`(attorneys and others). If the parties have concerns about disclosing confidential
`information, they are requested to contact the Board at least ten business days in
`advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at least
`seven business days before the hearing. The parties shall confer 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 visual aids for use at the
`oral hearing. For any issue regarding the proposed demonstrative exhibits 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 concise 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,
`to discuss them. Otherwise, we may expunge all demonstratives or allow only
`those that we do not find objectionable. Typically, however, we reserve ruling on
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`the objections until the hearing or ruling is necessary to resolve the dispute. Any
`objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will be considered
`waived. Each party also shall provide a hard copy of its demonstrative exhibits to
`the court reporter at the hearing.
`The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and
`specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number and by
`content) referenced during each hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`reporter’s transcript. Further, because a consolidated hearing will be conducted for
`three proceedings, if an argument and/or evidence applies only to a particular
`proceeding or proceedings, the presenter must identify the proceeding or
`proceedings, to which that argument and/or evidence applies. The parties also
`should note that Judges Bisk and Boudreau will each be attending the hearing
`electronically and will only have access to the courtesy copy of the demonstratives
`provided in advance, as referenced above. If a demonstrative is not made available
`to the Board in the manner indicated above, that demonstrative may not be
`available to each of the judges during the hearing and may not be considered.
`Further, images projected, using audio visual equipment in Dallas, will not be
`visible to Judges Bisk and Boudreau. Because of limitations on the audio
`transmission systems in our hearing rooms, the presenter may speak only when
`standing at the hearing room podium. If the parties have questions as to whether
`demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible and available to all of the
`judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board at (571) 272-9797.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`The Board expects 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 is unable to attend the oral argument, 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.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for each hearing, and the reporter’s
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. The reporter’s transcript
`will be entered in the record of the proceedings.
`Requests for audio-visual equipment or special accommodations 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 or
`accommodations may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`For PETITIONER
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip W. Citroën
`Michael A. Wolfe
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`michaelwolfe@paulhastings.com
`PH-Samsung-Uniloc-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`Ryan Loveless
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`6
`
`
`