Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
` September 19, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ETHICON LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01247 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01248 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01254 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01703 (Patent 8,616,431 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 Because this Order addresses issues that are the same in each of the
`proceedings, we issue one Order to be entered in each proceeding. The
`parties are not authorized to use this caption unless later permitted.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
` September 19, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ETHICON LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01247 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01248 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01254 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01703 (Patent 8,616,431 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
`MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 Because this Order addresses issues that are the same in each of the
`proceedings, we issue one Order to be entered in each proceeding. The
`parties are not authorized to use this caption unless later permitted.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01247 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01248 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01254 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01703 (Patent 8,616,431 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner request an oral argument in IPR2018-
`01247, -01248, and -01254, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 27, 30.2
`Petitioner requests 75 minutes of total argument time “to present arguments
`collectively for this proceeding and the two related proceedings.” Paper 27,
`1. Patent Owner requests 60 minutes of total argument time. Paper 30, 2.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner also request an oral argument in
`IPR2018-01703, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 17, 18. Petitioner
`requests 45 minutes of total argument time. Paper 17, 1. Patent Owner
`requests 30 minutes of total argument time. Paper 18, 1.
`Having considered the parties’ submissions, the parties’ requests for
`oral argument are GRANTED. Oral argument will commence at 10:00 am
`Eastern Time on October 17, 2019, on the 9th floor of Madison Building
`East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria Virginia. Seating will be available on a
`first-come, first-served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter, and
`the transcript shall constitute the official record of the hearing.
`In the consolidated oral argument for IPR2018-01247, -01248, and
`-01254, each party will have 60 minutes of total argument time. Petitioner
`will open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims.
`Patent Owner will then respond to Petitioner’s presentation. Petitioner may
`reserve rebuttal time of no more than half its total argument time to reply to
`Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner may reserve sur-rebuttal time of
`no more than half its total argument time to respond to Petitioner’s rebuttal.
`
`
`2 IPR2018-01247 is representative of IPR2018-01248 and IPR2018-01254,
`and all citations are to IPR2018-01247 unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01247 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01248 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01254 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01703 (Patent 8,616,431 B2)
`
`
`In the oral argument for IPR2018-01703, each party will have 45
`minutes of total argument time. Petitioner will open the hearing by
`presenting its case regarding the challenged claims. Patent Owner will then
`respond to Petitioner’s presentation. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time of
`no more than half its total argument time to reply to Patent Owner’s
`arguments. Patent Owner may reserve sur-rebuttal time of no more than half
`its total argument time to respond to Petitioner’s rebuttal.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits, if any, must be
`served seven business days before the hearing. The parties also shall
`provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least three business days
`prior to the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov. The parties shall
`not file any demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding without prior
`authorization from the Board.
`The Board reminds the parties that demonstrative exhibits are not
`evidence, but are intended to assist the parties in presenting their oral
`arguments to the Board. The Board also reminds the parties that
`demonstrative exhibits are not a mechanism for making arguments not
`previously addressed in the papers. 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), for
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If such objections
`cannot be resolved, the parties may file any remaining objections with the
`Board at least three business days before the oral hearing. The objections
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01247 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01248 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01254 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01703 (Patent 8,616,431 B2)
`
`should identify with particularity the portions of the demonstrative exhibits
`that are subject to objection and include a one-sentence statement of the
`basis for each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`The Board will consider any objections and schedule a conference call if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the
`objections until the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is
`not timely presented will be considered waived. A hard copy of the
`demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at the hearing.
`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. If either party anticipates 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 business days prior to the oral
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`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 no later than 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent directly to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of 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 am Eastern Time on
`October 17, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01247 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01248 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01254 (Patent 8,479,969 B2)
`IPR2018-01703 (Patent 8,616,431 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Steven Katz
`John Phillips
`Ryan O'Connor
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`katz@fr.com
`phillips@fr.com
`oconnor@fr.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Anish Desai
`Elizabeth Weiswasser
`Adrian Percer
`Christopher Marando
`Christopher Pepe
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`anish.desai@weil.com
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`christopher.marando@weil.com
`christopher.pepe@weil.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
