Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 32
`
` Date: January 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00129 (Patent 8,566,839 B2)
`IPR2022-00131 (Patent 8,639,267 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, STACEY G. WHITE, and GARTH D.
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses a panel change pertaining to the above-referenced
`proceedings. The parties are not permitted to use this caption unless
`authorized by the Board.
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 32
`
` Date: January 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00129 (Patent 8,566,839 B2)
`IPR2022-00131 (Patent 8,639,267 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, STACEY G. WHITE, and GARTH D.
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses a panel change pertaining to the above-referenced
`proceedings. The parties are not permitted to use this caption unless
`authorized by the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00129 (Patent 8,566,839 B2)
`IPR2022-00131 (Patent 8,639,267 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each request an oral hearing pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. IPR2022-00129, Papers 29, 30; IPR2022-00131,
`
`Papers 28, 29. Upon consideration, the requests for an oral hearing are
`
`granted.
`
`A combined oral argument for both IPR2022-00129 and IPR2022-
`
`00131 will commence at 3:40 PM MOUNTAIN TIME on February 23,
`
`2023, in person at The Great Hall, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law,
`
`Arizona State University, 111 E. Taylor Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004. The
`
`hearing will be part of a special PTAB/TTAB Stadium Tour program. The
`
`parties are welcome to attend the entire program and do not need to register
`
`for the program.
`
`Each party will have sixty (60) minutes of total time to present
`
`arguments for both cases. Because Petitioner has the burden of proof and
`
`persuasion, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case in both IPR2022-
`
`00129 and IPR2022-00131 with regard to the challenged claims and grounds
`
`set forth in the Petitions. Thereafter, Patent Owner may respond to
`
`Petitioner’s cases. Petitioner and Patent Owner may reserve some, but no
`
`more than half, of the allotted time for rebuttal and sur-rebuttal, respectively.
`
`The parties are reminded that arguments made during rebuttal and sur-
`
`rebuttal periods must be responsive to arguments the opposing party made in
`
`its immediately preceding presentation. The parties also are reminded that
`
`during the hearing, the parties “may only present arguments relied upon in
`
`the papers previously submitted.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) 86 (Nov. 2019).2
`
`
`2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00129 (Patent 8,566,839 B2)
`IPR2022-00131 (Patent 8,639,267 B2)
`
`
`At least three (3) business days prior to the hearing, each party shall
`
`serve on the other party any demonstrative exhibit(s) it intends to use during
`
`the hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). At least two (2) business days prior
`
`to the hearing, each party shall file any demonstrative exhibits it intends to
`
`use during the hearing as exhibits.
`
`Demonstrative exhibits used at the oral hearing are aids to oral
`
`argument and not evidence, and should be clearly marked as such. For
`
`example, each slide of a demonstrative exhibit may be marked with the
`
`words “DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE” in the footer.
`
`Demonstrative exhibits cannot 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 shall attempt to work out any objections to demonstratives
`
`prior to involving the Board. Should either party disagree with the propriety
`
`of any of the opposing party’s demonstratives, the party may send,
`
`contemporaneously with submitting their own slides two (2) business days
`
`prior to the hearing, an email to Trials@uspto.gov including a paper limited
`
`to identifying the opposing party’s slide(s) objected to and a brief sentence
`
`as to the general basis of the objection(s). No further argument is permitted
`
`in that paper. The Board will then take the objections under advisement, and
`
`if the content is inappropriate, it will not be considered. Any objection to
`
`demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered
`
`waived. The Board asks the parties to confine demonstrative exhibit
`
`objections to those identifying egregious violations that are prejudicial to the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00129 (Patent 8,566,839 B2)
`IPR2022-00131 (Patent 8,639,267 B2)
`
`
`administration of justice. The parties are directed to St. Jude Med.,
`
`Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the Univ. of Mich.,
`
`IPR2013-00041, Paper 65 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014), for guidance regarding the
`
`appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. In general, if the content on a
`
`slide cannot be readily associated with an argument made, or evidence
`
`referenced, in a substantive paper, it is inappropriate. The best practice is to
`
`indicate on each slide where support may be found in a substantive paper
`
`and/or exhibit or record in this proceeding.
`
`The panel will have access to all papers filed with the Board,
`
`including demonstratives. During the hearing, the parties are reminded to
`
`identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or
`
`screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`
`court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants.
`
`Members of the public will be attending this hearing. The parties are
`
`directed to contact the Board at least three (3) days in advance of the hearing
`
`if there are any concerns about disclosing confidential information. The
`
`Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s
`
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`
`As always, all practitioners appearing before the Board must
`
`demonstrate the highest professional standards. The Board expects all
`
`practitioners to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law,
`
`and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they
`
`represent. The Board generally expects lead counsel for each party to be
`
`present at the virtual hearing. See CTPG 11.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00129 (Patent 8,566,839 B2)
`IPR2022-00131 (Patent 8,639,267 B2)
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that an in-person combined oral hearing, conducted
`
`pursuant to the procedures outlined above, will commence at 3:40 PM
`
`MOUNTAIN TIME on February 23, 2023, in person at The Great Hall,
`
`Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, 111 E.
`
`Taylor Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00129 (Patent 8,566,839 B2)
`IPR2022-00131 (Patent 8,639,267 B2)
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`Zachary Conrad
`DLA PIPER LLP
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`zack.conrad@dlapiper.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian R. Michalek
`Joseph M. Kuo
`Brian R. Landry
`SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
`brian.michalek@saul.com
`joseph.kuo@saul.com
`brian.landry@saul.com
`
`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
