`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., and
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00337
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70, Juniper Networks, Inc., and Palo Alto
`
`
`
`Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”), submit this Request for Oral Hearing on the instituted
`
`grounds of unpatentability for claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and associated issues. Petitioner proposes consolidating
`
`this
`
`requested hearing with
`
`the hearings of
`
`IPR2020-00336,
`
`-00338,
`
`-00339, and -00486. Petitioner also requests rebuttal to respond to all issues raised
`
`by Patent Owner’s presentation.
`
`Petitioner intends to discuss the issues raised in the parties’ filings under the
`
`ongoing reviews, including but not limited to, the following items:
`
`1.
`
`Any issues addressed by Petitioner, including in the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review and Reply, including the patentability of claims 1-3, 7,
`
`16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646.
`
`2.
`
`Any issues properly raised by Patent Owner, including in Patent Owner
`
`Responses.
`
`3.
`
`Rebuttal to issues raised by Patent Owner, including in any Responses,
`
`motions to exclude, or requests for oral argument.
`
`4.
`
`Any other issues related to patentability that the Board deems necessary
`
`for issuing a final written decision.
`
`Similar claims are at issue in this proceeding and in co-pending IPR2020-
`
`00336, IPR2020-00338, IPR2020-00339, and IPR2020-00486. As such, Petitioner
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`suggests that these hearings be consolidated together for efficiency. Petitioner
`
`
`
`requests that the Oral Hearings for these five proceedings be consolidated and
`
`conducted on a single day, June 9, 2021, with each side limited to two (2) hours of
`
`oral argument. The five proceedings involve substantially overlapping claim scope
`
`including the same claim construction issue, and rely on substantially the same prior
`
`art. Moreover, Patent Owner’s arguments across its responses are duplicative as
`
`evidenced by the nearly identical headings in the respective tables of contents.
`
`Compare IPR2020-00336, Paper 26 at vi-vii; IPR2020-00337, Paper 26 at vi-vii;
`
`IPR2020-00338, Paper 27 at vi-vii; IPR2020-00339, Paper 28 at vi-vii; IPR2020-
`
`00486, Paper 27 at vi-vii. Accordingly, Petitioner proposes that arguments for all
`
`five IPRs be jointly held with an allocation of two (2) hours per side, with the
`
`opportunity to reserve time for rebuttal for Petitioner. Petitioner will present
`
`arguments first, followed by Patent Owner’s arguments, and then followed by any
`
`time reserved for rebuttal.
`
`Petitioner has attempted to secure Patent Owner’s agreement on the above
`
`consolidation proposal, but Patent Owner was of the opinion that if the Board wanted
`
`to consolidate, it would have already elected to do so.1 In its Requests for Hearing,
`
`
`1 An April 27th, 2021 e-mail from A. Bullwinkel (Patent Owner counsel) to A.
`
`Radsch (Petitioner counsel) states that “PI opposes the request for consolidation. The
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`however, Patent Owner now indicates that it would “not object” to the Board
`
`
`
`consolidating the five proceedings into two hearings (i.e., consolidating the hearings
`
`for the IPR2020-00336 and IPR2020-00337 proceedings on one day, and
`
`consolidating the hearings for the IPR2020-00338, IPR2020-00339, and IPR2020-
`
`00486 proceedings on the following day), with each side having sixty (60) minutes
`
`per consolidated hearing. See, e.g., IPR2020-00336, Paper 33 at 2; IPR2020-00486,
`
`Paper 32 at 2. Accordingly, it appears that Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that
`
`each side should have two (2) hours for oral argument across the five proceedings.
`
`Petitioner believes that it would be most efficient for that oral argument to be
`
`conducted in one session on one day, instead of in duplicative sessions over two
`
`days.
`
`To the extent the Board decides to move forward with separate hearings,
`
`Petitioner proposes that arguments for both IPR2020-00336 and IPR2020-00337 be
`
`jointly held (as already scheduled by the Board) with an allocation of sixty (60)
`
`minutes per side, with the opportunity to reserve time for rebuttal for Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner will present arguments first, followed by Patent Owner’s arguments, and
`
`then followed by any time reserved for rebuttal. Petitioner also requests, for
`
`
`Board has already tweaked the schedule for some of these proceedings and elected
`
`not to combine them.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`efficiency, that a hearing consolidating IPR2020-00338, -00339, and -00486
`
`
`
`(consistent with Patent Owner’s Requests) be conducted on the same day.
`
`Furthermore, in view of the USPTO’s update on oral hearings scheduled to
`
`take place at USPTO offices on or after Friday, March 13, 2020, Petitioner intends
`
`to participate via remote video and/or telephone.
`
`If the Board is able to hold an in-person hearing, Petitioner requests that the
`
`hearing be conducted at the USPTO Headquarters in Alexandria, VA. Petitioner
`
`also requests two spaces be reserved for counsel at counsel’s table and five additional
`
`spaces be reserved in the hearing room to accommodate additional counsel and
`
`corporate representatives. Petitioner also requests that the attorneys at Petitioner’s
`
`counsel table be allowed to use computers, and that audio/visual equipment be
`
`provided to display demonstratives.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Scott A. McKeown/
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-6807
`Telephone: +1-202-508-4740
`Facsimile: +1-617-235-9492
`Scott.McKeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
`
`ORAL HEARING was served in its entirety by filing through the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), as well as providing a courtesy copy via e-mail
`
`to the following attorneys of record for Patent Owner listed below:
`
`Lead Counsel
`R. Allan Bullwinkel
`Reg. No. 77,630
`Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713-221-2000
`Facsimile: 713-221-2021
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 29, 2021
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Michael F. Heim
`Reg. No. 32,702
`Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713-221-2000
`Facsimile: 713-221-2021
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Jonathan Bradford/
`Name: Jonathan Bradford
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`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
