`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00473
`Patent 10,589,320
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00473
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0031IP1
`
`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. 10,589,320.
`
`The Board scheduled an oral argument for May 19, 2022 in this proceeding
`
`(IPR2021-00473), the same day as three related IPR proceedings involving the
`
`same parties (IPR2021-0470, IPR2021-0471, and IPR2021-0472). See Paper 10.
`
`Petitioner requests that the argument for this proceeding be consolidated with the
`
`arguments for IPR2021-0471 and IPR2021-0472 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. IPR2021-00473
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0031IP1
`
`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. IPR2021-00473
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0031IP1
`
`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
`
`