throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 61
`Entered: August 20, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Requests for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`
`Under the Scheduling Order, the date set for oral hearing in these
`proceedings is September 13, 2019, if hearing is requested by either party
`and granted by the Board. Paper 9.1 Both parties request oral hearing.
`Papers 43, 54. The requests are granted.
`Procedure
`A consolidated oral argument will be held for both proceedings. Each
`side will have 75 minutes, total, to present its argument, and may allocate its
`time among the proceedings as it wishes. Any representation made by
`counsel at the consolidated oral argument is applicable to and useable in all
`proceedings that have underlying basis for the representation.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s
`claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner will
`open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims on
`which the Board instituted trial. After Petitioner’s presentation, Patent
`Owner will respond to Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner may reserve time to
`respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Patent Owner may reserve time for a
`brief sur-rebuttal as set forth in the Board’s Revised Trial Practice Guide.
`No other arguments will be heard.
`The hearing will commence at 10:00 AM Mountain Time on
`September 13, 2019, on the 14th floor of the Byron G. Rogers Federal
`Building, 1961 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. The Board will provide a
`court reporter for the hearing and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the
`official record of the hearing.
`
`
`1 Citations are to IPR2018-01257. Similar papers have been filed in both
`proceedings.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`
`Attendance
`At least one judge may participate in the hearing via videoconference
`or telephonic conference from a remote location; counsel for the parties,
`however, must appear in person. Because the petitioner parties other than
`Google LLC have agreed to take an understudy role in the case, only counsel
`for Google LLC is authorized to present arguments on behalf of the
`petitioner parties.
`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
`should initiate a joint telephone conference with the Board no later than two
`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 USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia;
`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, CA. To request remote video viewing, a party must send an email
`message to Trials@uspto.gov ten 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.
`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 have
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`concerns about disclosing confidential information, they should contact the
`Board at least ten days in advance of the hearing to discuss the matter.
`Exhibits
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven business days before the hearing date. The parties also shall
`provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least two business days
`prior to the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov. The parties shall
`not file any demonstrative exhibits in this case without prior authorization.
`Demonstrative exhibits should cite to evidence in the record.
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence. Rather, they are merely visual aids
`to oral argument and should be clearly marked as such. For example, each
`slide may be marked with the words “DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –
`NOT EVIDENCE” in the footer. Demonstrative exhibits may not be used to
`advance arguments or introduce evidence not previously presented in the
`record. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (noting that the “Board was obligated to dismiss [the petitioner’s]
`untimely argument . . . raised for the first time during oral argument”). 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.
`A hard copy of the demonstratives should be provided to the court
`reporter at the hearing, but hard copies of the demonstratives are not needed
`for the judges. The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify
`clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`number) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of
`the reporter’s transcript.
`No live witness testimony shall be taken at the oral argument. The
`parties are reminded that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(7), a proponent of
`deposition testimony must file such testimony as an exhibit. The Board will
`not consider any deposition testimony that has not been so filed.
`The parties shall meet and confer to discuss and resolve any
`objections to demonstrative exhibits. Any party with unresolved objections
`must file a list of those objections with the Board at least two business days
`before the hearing. For each objection, the list must identify with
`particularity which portions of the demonstrative exhibits are subject to the
`objection and may include a short, one-sentence statement explaining the
`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. Any objection to
`demonstrative exhibits not timely presented may be considered waived.
`Special Requests
`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
`days before the hearing. If the request is not received timely, the equipment
`may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`
`Any requests for a pre-hearing conference must be made by
`August 30, 2019. To request such a conference, an email should be sent to
`Trials@uspto.gov including several dates and times of availability for one or
`both parties, as appropriate, that are generally no later than three business
`days prior to the oral hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Andrew S. Baluch
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`James Sobieraj
`Jon Beaupre
`Yeuzhong Feng
`Andres Shoffstall
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`jsobieraj@brinksgilson.com
`jbeaupre@brinksgilson.com
`yfen@brinksgilson.com
`ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`Chetan Bansal
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.com
`
`Collin Park
`Andrew Devkar
`Jeremy Peterson
`Adam Brooke
`MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Collin.park@morganlewis.com
`Andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`jpeterson@morganlewis.com
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`Kristopher Reed
`Benjamin Klein
`Norris Booth
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`bkleinman@kilpatricktownsend.com
`nboothe@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Jay P. Kesan
`DIMURO GINSBERG PC-DGKEYIP GROUP
`jkesan@dimuro.com
`
`Ari Rafilson
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`
`
`8
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket