Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: August 30, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and MINN CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: August 30, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and MINN CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`The date set for oral hearing in these proceedings is September 17,
`2019, if a hearing is requested by either party and granted by the Board.
`Paper 32. Both parties have requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70. Papers 49, 50. The requests are GRANTED.
`The oral hearing will commence at 10:00 AM Eastern Time on
`Tuesday, September 17, 2019, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA. There is a strong public policy interest
`in making all information presented in these proceedings public, as the
`review determines the patentability of claims in an issued patent and thus
`affects the rights of the public. This policy is reflected in part, for example,
`in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) and 35 U.S. C. § 326(a)(1) which provide that the
`file of any inter partes review or post grant review be made available to the
`public, except that any petition or document filed with the intent that it be
`sealed shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending
`the outcome of the ruling on the motion. The parties did not request any part
`of the hearing be sealed in their requests for oral hearing. See Papers 49, 50.
`Accordingly, the hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance
`that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. If the parties
`wish to seal any part of the hearing from the public, the parties should
`raise the issue in their joint Request for Prehearing Conference.
`Each party will have 30 minutes of total argument time. Unified
`Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claim
`at issue in this review is unpatentable. The burden of persuasion ordinary
`lies with Petitioner to demonstrate that proposed, substitute claims are
`unpatentable based on the entirety of the record. Lectrosonics, Inc. v.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Zaxcom, Inc., Case IPR2018-01129, 1130 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (Paper 15)
`(Precedential). Therefore, at oral hearing Petitioner will proceed first to
`present its case with regard to the challenged claim on which basis we
`instituted trial, as well as the unpatentability of the proposed, substitute
`claims. Patent Owner then will respond to Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner
`may use any reserved rebuttal time to address Patent Owner’s response.
`Absent special circumstances, Petitioner’s rebuttal may not be more than
`half the total allotted time. Thereafter, Patent Owner may use any reserved
`sur-rebuttal time to present a brief sur-rebuttal.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Demonstrative exhibits must be served on opposing counsel no later than
`September 10, 2019. The parties may refer to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology
`Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case
`IPR2013-00041, slip op. at 2–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (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 list of objections to the
`demonstrative exhibits no later than September 13, 2019. 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 any objections and schedule a conference
`call if deemed necessary. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits not
`timely presented will be considered waived.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), each party shall file its
`demonstrative exhibits with the Board as a separate paper no later than
`September 13, 2019. Each party shall provide a hard copy of its
`demonstratives to the court reporter at the hearing. 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. The parties should mark each slide of demonstrative exhibits with the
`words “DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE” in the
`footer.
`At least one judge on the panel will be hearing the case from a remote
`location and may not be able to view the projection screen in the hearing
`room. Thus, during the hearing, counsel must identify clearly and
`specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number)
`referenced to ensure clarity and accuracy of the transcript. The parties may
`only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the
`proceeding and may only present arguments that have been previously made
`in the submitted papers. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at
`the hearing. The parties have not requested to present live testimony during
`the hearing; thus, live testimony will not be permitted.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the oral
`hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s argument
`as long as that counsel is present in person. If either party expects that its
`lead counsel will not be attending the oral argument, the parties should
`initiate a joint telephone conference with the Board no later than two (2)
`business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the matter.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment are to be made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`A party may also indicate any special request related to appearing at
`an in-person oral hearing, such as a request to accommodate physical needs
`that limit mobility or visual or hearing impairments, and indicate how the
`PTAB may accommodate the special request. Any special request must be
`presented in a separate communication not less than five (5) business days
`before the hearing.
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is:
`ORDERED that the oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the
`procedures outlined above, shall commence at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time on
`September 17, 2019 on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jonathan Stroud
`Roshan Mansinghani
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`David Cavanaugh
`Dan Williams
`Jonathan Robe
`WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR, LLP
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com
`jonathan.robe@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Chris Coulson
`ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
