Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 37
`
` Date: March 6, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 These cases have not been joined or consolidated. Rather, this Scheduling
`Order governs each case. The parties are not authorized to use this heading
`style.
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 37
`
` Date: March 6, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 These cases have not been joined or consolidated. Rather, this Scheduling
`Order governs each case. The parties are not authorized to use this heading
`style.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each request an oral hearing for the
`above captioned cases pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. The requests for an
`oral hearing are granted.
`
` Time and Format
`A combined oral argument for IPR2022-00420, IPR2022-00426,
`IPR2022-00427, and IPR2022-00310 will commence at 9:00 AM
`EASTERN TIME on April 14, 2023, at the USPTO Headquarters in
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`During the first session, each party will have forty-five (45) minutes
`of total time to present arguments for both IPR2022-00420 and IPR2022-
`00427. After a short break, each party will then have forty-five (45) minutes
`of total time to present arguments for both IPR2022-00426 and IPR2022-
`00310. Because Petitioner has the burden of proof and persuasion, Petitioner
`will proceed first to present its cases with regard to the challenged claims
`and grounds set forth in the Petitions. Thereafter, Patent Owner may respond
`to Petitioner’s arguments. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`
`
` Demonstratives
`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. The parties should file the same set of
`demonstrative exhibits for all four cases.
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`
`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
`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.
`
` 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 in person.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`
`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.
`
` 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.3
`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 for each set of cases, depending on the length of
`the proceeding and the PTAB’s hearing schedule. A party should submit a
`
`
`3 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.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`
`request, no later than at least five (5) business days before the oral hearing,
`by email to the Board at PTABHearings@uspto.gov.4
`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
`be conducted by the LEAP practitioner.5 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
`
`
`4 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.
`5 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`
`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 may,
`at its discretion, 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.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that an in-person combined oral hearing, conducted
`pursuant to the procedures outlined above, will commence at 9:00 AM
`EASTERN TIME on April 14, 2023, at the USPTO Headquarters in
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00420 (Patent 10,477,994 B2)
`IPR2022-00426 (Patent 8,761,804 B2)
`IPR2022-00427 (Patent 10,292,011 B2)
`IPR2022-00310 (Patent 9,088,868 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`Jonathan Hicks
`Zachary Conrad
`DL PIPPER (US)
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`jonathan.hicks@dlapiper.com
`zack.conrad@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian R. Michalek
`Joseph M. Kuo
`Brian R. Landry
`Courtland C. Merrrill
`SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
`brian.michalek@saul.com
`joseph.kuo@saul.com
`brian.landry@saul.com
`courtland.merrill@saul.com
`
`8
`
`
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
