`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00471
`Patent 10,259,021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00471
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0029IP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner Apple Inc. requests oral
`
`
`
`argument on all of the instituted grounds of unpatentability in this proceeding
`
`regarding the Challenged Claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,259,021.
`
`The Board scheduled an oral argument for May 19, 2022 in this proceeding
`
`(IPR2021-00471), the same day as three related IPR proceedings involving the
`
`same parties (IPR2021-0470, IPR2021-0472, and IPR2021-0473). See Paper 11.
`
`Petitioner requests that the argument for this proceeding be consolidated with the
`
`arguments for IPR2021-0472 and IPR2021-0473 in a single hearing beginning no
`
`later than 10:00 AM Eastern Time. Petitioner further requests that the argument in
`
`IPR2021-0470 proceed immediately or shortly thereafter as a separate hearing.
`
`The three proceedings with which Petitioner proposes a consolidated hearing
`
`(i.e., IPR2021-0471, IPR2021-0472, and IPR2021-0473) involve related patents
`
`and have overlapping claim limitations, prior art grounds, and exhibits. A
`
`consolidated hearing would minimize repetitive argument and lead to an efficient
`
`presentation of the evidence. As for IPR2021-0470, while it involves a related
`
`patent, the claim limitations and prior art diverge to some degree from the other
`
`proceedings. Addressing IPR2021-0470 separately will avoid confusion of the
`
`issues.
`
`Petitioner requests at least one hour per side of argument time for the
`
`consolidated hearing.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00471
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0029IP1
`
`If the oral argument is not held via videoconference, Petitioner also
`
`
`
`respectfully requests the ability to use audio-visual equipment to display
`
`demonstrative exhibits, including the use of a projector and screen that connects to
`
`a laptop computer. Petitioner’s counsel will use a laptop computer with a HDMI-
`
`type connector. In addition, Petitioner requests that an ELMO-type projector be
`
`made available for use.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated April 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Kenneth Wayne Darby Jr./
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Andrew Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`Kim H. Leung, Reg. No. 64,399
`Kenneth Wayne Darby Jr., Reg. No. 65,068
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00471
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0029IP1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on April 4,
`
`2022, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument
`
`were provided via email, to the Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence
`
`addresses of record as follows:
`
`John J. Edmonds
`Stephen F. Schlather
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`
`Tarek Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`2150 N. First St., Suite 420
`San Jose, CA 95131
`
`Email: jedmonds@ip-lit.com
`Email: sschlather@ip-lit.com
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(617) 956-5938
`
`
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
