Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: September 23, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01152 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01153 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01154 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01240 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)1
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties may not use this style heading unless authorized.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: September 23, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01152 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01153 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01154 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01240 (Patent 8,698,558 B2)1
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties may not use this style heading unless authorized.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`
`Both parties have requested oral argument in these matters. Papers
`24, 25 (IPR2018-01152); Papers 23, 24 (IPR2018-01153, IPR2018-01154,
`and IPR2018-01240). By joint email dated September 20, 2019, the paties
`also requested a prehearing conference. See Ex. 3001. In lieu of a
`prehearing conference, the parties requested an Order specifying the time,
`location, and duration of the oral hearing. Id. The parties jointly requested
`90 minutes per side for a consolidated hearing for IPR2018-01152,
`IPR2018-01153, IPR2018-01154, and IPR2018-01240. Id. We will hold a
`consolidated hearing for these cases because they involve the same patent,
`and we determine that three hours of total argument time will be sufficient
`for the consolidated hearing. Therefore, each party will be allocated 90
`minutes for argument. In light of this Order, no prehearing conference will
`be scheduled.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on October
`28, 2019. The hearing will be conducted 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, which will be accommodated
`on a first-come, first-served basis. 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.
`Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with regard to the
`challenged claims. Petitioner may reserve some, but not more than one half,
`of its argument time for rebuttal. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to
`Petitioner’s case and may reserve some of its argument time, for sur-rebuttal.
`Next, Petitioner may use any time it has reserved for rebuttal to respond to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s specific arguments presented at the hearing. Then, Patent
`Owner may present a brief sur-rebuttal if it has reserved time. No live
`testimony from any witness will be taken at the oral argument.
`Any demonstrative exhibits shall be served at least five (5) 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, at least three (3) business days prior to 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 are directed to St. Jude Medical,
`Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan,
`Case IPR2013-00041, slip op. 2–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. 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 two (2) 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 may
`schedule a conference call, if necessary, to discuss them. Typically,
`however, we reserve ruling on the objections until the hearing or until a
`ruling is necessary to resolve the dispute. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not presented timely will be considered waived. Each party
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`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 the consolidated hearing to ensure the clarity
`and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript. The parties also should note that
`one or more judges on the panel will be attending electronically and will
`only have access to the filed 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 the
`hearing room will not be visible to judges participating remotely. 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.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the 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.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`should initiate a joint telephone conference with the Board no later than
`three (3) business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the matter.
`A party may request remote video attendance for one or more of its
`other attendees to view the hearing from any USPTO location. The
`available locations include the Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver,
`Colorado; the Texas Regional Office in Dallas, Texas; the Elijah J. McCoy
`Midwest Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan; and the Silicon Valley Office
`in San Jose, California. To request remote video viewing, a party must send
`an email message to Trials@uspto.gov ten (10) business days prior to the
`hearing, indicating the requested location and the number planning to view
`the hearing from the remote location. The Board will notify the parties if the
`request for video viewing is granted. Note that it may not be possible to
`grant the request due to the availability of resources.
`Any special requests for audio-visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov. A party may also indicate any special requests 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
`requests must be presented in a separate communication not less than five
`(5) days before the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01152, IPR2018-01153,
`IPR2018-01154, IPR2018-01240
`Patent 8,698,558 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`Richard Goldenberg
`Theodoros Konstantakopoulos
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`Theodoros.konstantakopoulos@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph Sauer
`Matthew Johnson
`David Cochran
`Daid Maiorana
`Joshua Nightingale
`Richard Graham
`JONES DAY
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`jmightingale@jonesday.com
`ragraham@jonesday.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
