`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 26
`Date: January 19, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`and ANKER INNOVATIONS LTD.1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTINA M. KALAN, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Setting Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Anker Innovations Ltd. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in
`IPR2022-01131 and in IPR2022-01134 and has been joined as a petitioner in
`these proceedings.
`2 This Order Setting Oral Argument applies to the two listed cases. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`
`I. ORAL ARGUMENT
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have requested oral argument pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 24, 25.3
`
`A. Time and Format
`Oral arguments will commence at 1:00 pm Eastern Time on February
`24, 2023, by video.4 The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing,
`and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`In view of overlapping issues, oral arguments for the two referenced
`cases will be consolidated in a single hearing in which Petitioner will have a
`total of ninety (90) minutes to present argument and Patent Owner will have
`a total of ninety (90) minutes to respond. Petitioner will open the hearing by
`presenting its case regarding the challenged claims. Thereafter, Patent
`Owner will respond to Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner may reserve
`rebuttal time to respond to arguments presented by Patent Owner. In
`accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5 (“CTPG”), issued in
`November 2019, Patent Owner may request to reserve time for a brief sur-
`rebuttal. See CTPG 83.
`The parties may request a pre-hearing conference in advance of the
`hearing. See id. at 82. “The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is to
`afford the parties the opportunity to preview (but not argue) the issues to be
`
`
`3 We refer to the papers filed in IPR2022-00311. Similar papers were filed in
`IPR2022-00312.
`4 If there are any concerns about disclosing confidential information, the
`parties must contact the Board at Trials@uspto.gov at least ten (10) business
`days before the hearing date.
`5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`discussed at the hearing, and to seek the Board’s guidance as to particular
`issues that the panel would like addressed by the parties.” Id. If either party
`desires a pre-hearing conference, the parties should jointly contact the Board
`at Trials@uspto.gov at least seven (7) business days before the hearing date
`to request a conference call for that purpose.
`
`B. Demonstratives
`Demonstratives shall be served on opposing counsel at least seven (7)
`business days before the hearing date and filed no later than two (2) business
`days before the hearing.6
`Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.
`Demonstratives also are not evidence and will not be relied upon as
`evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral
`presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and
`discussed in the papers. Accordingly, demonstratives shall be clearly
`marked with the words “DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT
`EVIDENCE” in the footer. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364,
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that the Board is obligated under its own
`regulations to dismiss untimely argument “raised for the first time during
`oral argument”). “[N]o new evidence may be presented at the oral
`argument.” CTPG 85; see also St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Mich., IPR2013-00041, Paper 65, 2–3 (PTAB
`Jan. 27, 2014) (explaining that “new” evidence includes evidence already of
`record but not previously discussed in any paper of record).
`
`6 The parties may stipulate to an alternative schedule for serving
`demonstratives and request that the Board modify the schedule for serving
`demonstratives at least seven (7) business days before the hearing date.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`
`Furthermore, because of the strict prohibition against the presentation
`of new evidence or arguments at a hearing, it is strongly recommended that
`each demonstrative include a citation to a paper in the record, which allows
`the Board to easily ascertain whether a given demonstrative contains “new”
`argument or evidence or, instead, contains only that which is developed in
`the existing record.
`Due to the nature of the Board’s consideration of demonstratives and
`the opportunity afforded for the parties to reach an agreement without
`involving the Board, the Board does not anticipate that objections to
`demonstratives are likely to be sustained. Nevertheless, to the extent that a
`party objects to the propriety of any demonstrative, the parties shall meet
`and confer in good faith to resolve any objections to demonstratives prior to
`filing the objections with the Board. If such objections cannot be resolved,
`the parties may file any objections to demonstratives with the Board no later
`than the time of the hearing. The objections shall identify with particularity
`which portions of the demonstratives are subject to objection (and should
`include a copy of the objected-to portions) and include a one (1) sentence
`statement of the reason for each objection. No argument or further
`explanation is permitted. The Board will consider any objections, and may
`reserve ruling on the objections.7 Any objection to demonstratives that is
`not timely presented will be considered waived.
`
`
`7 If time permits, the Board may schedule a conference call with the parties
`to discuss any filed objections.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`C. Presenting Counsel
`The Board generally expects lead counsel for each party to be present
`at the hearing. See CTPG 11. Any counsel of record may present the
`party’s argument as long as that counsel is present by video.
`
`D. Video or Telephonic Hearing Details
`To facilitate planning, each party must contact the Board at
`PTABHearings@uspto.gov at least five (5) business days prior to the
`hearing date to receive video set-up information. As a reminder, all
`arrangements and the expenses involved with appearing by video, such as
`the selection of the facility from which a party will attend by video, must be
`borne by that party. If a video connection cannot be established, the parties
`will be provided with dial-in connection information, and the hearing will be
`conducted telephonically.
`If one or both parties would prefer to participate in the hearing
`telephonically, they must contact the Board at PTABHearings@uspto.gov at
`least five (5) business days prior to the hearing date to receive dial-in
`connection information.
`Counsel should unmute only when speaking. 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 appearing electronically. In addition, the parties
`are advised to identify themselves each time they speak. Furthermore, the
`remote nature of the hearing may also result in an audio lag, and thus the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`parties are advised to observe a pause prior to speaking, so as to avoid
`speaking over others.
`If at any time during the hearing, counsel encounters technical or
`other difficulties that fundamentally undermine counsel’s ability to
`adequately represent its client, please let the panel know immediately, and
`adjustments will be made.8
`
`E. Remote Attendance Requests
`Members of the public may request to listen to and/or view this
`hearing. If resources are available, the Board generally expects to grant such
`requests. If either party objects to the Board granting such requests, for
`example, because confidential information may be discussed, the party must
`notify the Board at PTABHearings@uspto.gov at least ten (10) business
`days prior to the hearing date.
`
`F. Audio/Visual Equipment Requests
`Any special requests for audio-visual equipment should be directed to
`PTABHearings@uspto.gov. A party may also indicate any special requests
`related to appearing at a video hearing, such as a request to accommodate
`deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals and blind or low vision individuals, and
`indicate how the PTAB may accommodate the special request. Any special
`requests must be presented in a separate communication at least five (5)
`business days before the hearing date.
`
`
`8 For example, if a party is experiencing poor video quality, the Board may
`provide alternate dial-in information.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`G. Legal Experience and Advancement Program
`The Board has established the “Legal Experience and Advancement
`Program,” or “LEAP,” to encourage advocates with less legal experience to
`argue before the Board to develop their skills. The Board defines a LEAP
`practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer
`substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal, including PTAB.9
`The parties are encouraged to participate in the Board’s LEAP
`program. Either party may request that a qualifying LEAP practitioner
`participate in the program and conduct at least a portion of the party’s oral
`argument. The Board will grant up to fifteen (15) minutes of additional
`argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and
`the PTAB’s hearing schedule. A party should submit a request, no later than
`at least five (5) business days before the oral hearing, by email to the Board
`at PTABHearings@uspto.gov.10
`The LEAP practitioner may conduct the entire oral argument or may
`share time with other counsel, provided that the LEAP practitioner is offered
`a meaningful and substantive opportunity to argue before the Board. The
`party has the discretion as to the type and quantity of oral argument that will
`
`
`9 Whether an argument is “substantive” for purposes of determining whether
`an advocate qualifies as a LEAP practitioner will be made on a case-by-case
`basis with considerations to include, for example, the amount of time that
`the practitioner argued, the circumstances of the argument, and whether the
`argument concerned the merits or ancillary issues.
`10 Additionally, a LEAP Verification Form shall be submitted by the LEAP
`practitioner, confirming eligibility for the program. A combined LEAP
`Practitioner Request for Oral Hearing Participation and Verification Form is
`available on the LEAP website, www.uspto.gov/leap.
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`be conducted by the LEAP practitioner.11 Moreover, whether the LEAP
`practitioner conducts the argument in whole or in part, the Board will permit
`more experienced counsel to provide some assistance to the LEAP
`practitioner, if necessary, during oral argument, and to clarify any statements
`on the record before the conclusion of the oral argument. Importantly, the
`Board does not draw any inference about the importance of a particular issue
`or issues, or the merits of the party’s arguments regarding that issue, from
`the party’s decision to have (or not to have) a LEAP practitioner argue.
`In instances where an advocate does not meet the LEAP eligibility
`requirements due to the number of “substantive” oral hearing arguments, but
`nonetheless has a basis for considering themselves to be in the category of
`advocates that this program is intended to assist, the Board encourages
`argument by such advocates during oral hearings. Even though additional
`argument time will not be provided when the advocate does not qualify for
`LEAP, a party may share argument time among counsel and the Board will
`permit the more experienced counsel to provide some assistance, if
`necessary, during oral argument, and to clarify any statements on the record
`before the conclusion of the oral argument.
`All practitioners appearing before the Board shall demonstrate the
`highest professional standards. All practitioners are expected 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.
`
`
`11 Examples of the issues that a LEAP practitioner may argue include claim
`construction argument(s), motion(s) to exclude evidence, or patentability
`argument(s) including, e.g., analyses of prior art or objective indicia of non-
`obviousness.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that oral argument for this proceeding shall commence at
`1:00 pm Eastern Time on February 24, 2023, by video, and proceed in the
`manner set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00311 (Patent 8,477,514 B2)
`IPR2022-00312 (Patent 7,675,759 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`Neil Sirota
`Brett Thompsen
`Frank Zhu
`Paula Heyman
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com
`brett.thomsen@bakerbotts.com
`frank.zhu@bakerbotts.com
`paula.heyman@bakerbotts.com
`
`Ping Wang
`Eric Cohen
`RIMON PC
`ping.wang@rimonlaw.com
`eric.cohen@rimomlaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James T. Carmichael
`Stephen McBride
`Minghui Yang
`CARMICHAEL IP, PLLC
`jim@carmichaelip.com
`stevemcbride@carmichaelip.com
`mitch@carmichaelip.com
`
`10
`
`