`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case no. IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. 42.70(a) and the Board’s Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 16), Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests oral
`
`argument in the above-captioned proceeding. Oral argument is currently scheduled
`
`for December 16, 2022.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the hearing take place remotely via video
`
`conference, which is consistent with the current practice pursuant to the USPTO’s
`
`notice that all oral hearings will be conducted remotely by video or telephone unless
`
`all parties request otherwise (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/hearings).1 If the
`
`hearing is held in person, Petitioner requests the ability to use a computer, projector,
`
`and screen to display possible demonstratives and exhibits. Petitioner also requests
`
`that the attorneys at Petitioner’s counsel table be allowed to use computers.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests 45 minutes of argument time for each side, for
`
`a total hearing time of 90 minutes.2 To the extent the Board schedules this hearing
`
`
`1 The parties have conferred, and Patent Owner opposed a remote hearing without stating
`
`why. Here, no unique circumstances exist that would warrant departing from the USPTO’s
`
`current default practice, and the additional time and expense that would be necessitated by
`
`holding the hearing in person negate any perceived benefit.
`
`2 At least one practitioner intending to present at the hearing qualifies under the
`
`PTAB’s Legal Experience and Advancement Program (LEAP). If oral argument is
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`to last more than the total hearing time requested by Petitioner, Petitioner requests
`
`that it be given half the total length.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the portions of the hearing addressing real
`
`party-in-interest and estoppel be closed to the public. Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`have conferred and Patent Owner does not oppose. It is possible that the parties may
`
`discuss Petitioner’s confidential business information that is subject to the Protective
`
`Order in this case during those portions of the hearing and in response to questions
`
`from the Board. Petitioner respectfully requests that accommodations be made for
`
`anyone who has not signed the protective order acknowledgment to leave the video
`
`conference (if the hearing is remote) or the hearing room (if the hearing is in person)
`
`if such confidential business information needs to be discussed or presented by either
`
`Petitioner or Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the opportunity to present oral arguments on
`
`the following issues, without intent to waive consideration of any issue not
`
`requested:
`
` the interpretation of claim terms of U.S. Patent 10,621,228;
`
`
`held, Petitioner will request authorization to file the PTAB LEAP verification form
`
`for additional time as the Board deems reasonable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
` the unpatentability of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Okamura and
`
`Flora;
`
` the unpatentability of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Okamura,
`
`Flora, and Wagner;
`
` the unpatentability of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Okamura,
`
`Flora, and Gilley;
`
` the unpatentability of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Okamura,
`
`Flora, Wagner, and Gilley;
`
` real party-in-interest;
`
` estoppel;
`
` any issues raised in any paper of record or outstanding motion in this
`
`proceeding;
`
` any arguments raised by Patent Owner in its request for oral argument; and
`
` any issue raised by the Board during the argument or for which the Board
`
`seeks clarification.
`
`No fee is believed to be due with this Request; however, the Director is hereby
`
`authorized to charge any required fee to Deposit Account 50-6990.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dated: November 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ellyar Y. Barazesh/
`Ellyar Y. Barazesh
`Reg. No. 74,096
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing PETITIONER’S REQUEST
`
`IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served on November 1, 2022, via e-mail, as agreed
`
`to by counsel, upon the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`
`George Dandalides
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`70 West Madison, Suite 5200
`Chicago, IL 60602-4224
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`
`Matthew A. Werber
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`70 West Madison, Suite 5200
`Chicago, IL 60602-4224
`mwerber@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Paralegal
`Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
