`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Date: August 25, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NETLIST, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)1
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, JON M. JURGOVAN, and DANIEL J.
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Setting Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and
`Micron Technology Texas LLC filed motions for joinder and petitions in
`IPR2023-00405 and IPR2023-00406 and have been joined as petitioners in
`this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`
`I. ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have requested oral argument in this
`
`case. IPR2022-00996 (“996IPR”), Papers 28, 29; IPR2022-00999
`
`(“999IPR”), Papers 29, 30. These requests are granted subject to the
`
`conditions stated below.
`
`Petitioner requested a single combined hearing for the 996IPR and
`
`999IPR with 90 minutes per side to be held remotely by videoconference.
`
`996IPR, Paper 27, 2; 999IPR, Paper 29, 2. Petitioner also requested to
`
`present arguments first since it bears the burden of showing unpatentability.
`
`Id.
`
`Patent Owner requests 60 minutes per side for each of the 996IPR and
`
`999IPR in person at the Texas USPTO Regional Office in Dallas or remote
`
`hearing by video. 996IPR, Paper 29, 1; 999IPR, Paper 30, 1.
`
`Since the parties each agree to a video hearing, the hearing shall be
`
`conducted by video. Since there is significant overlap between the subject
`
`matter of the challenged patents, challenged grounds, and prior art of the
`
`996IPR and 999IPR, we find it will be most efficient to hear the arguments
`
`for both cases together in one proceeding, and that 90 minutes of argument
`
`time per side should be sufficient for each party to present their arguments.
`
`See 996IPR, Paper 1, 3; 999IPR, Paper 1, 3.
`
`Accordingly, oral hearing will be held as follows.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`A. Time and Format
`
`Oral arguments will commence at 1PM Eastern Time on September
`
`11, 2023, by VIDEO.2 The Board will provide a court reporter for the
`
`hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the
`
`hearing.
`
`Petitioner will have a total of 90 minutes to present argument for the
`
`996IPR and 999IPR cases and Patent Owner will have a total of 90 minutes
`
`to respond. Petitioner will open the hearing by presenting its case regarding
`
`the challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial. 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 Guide3 (“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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2 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.
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`B. Demonstratives
`
`Demonstratives shall be served on opposing counsel at least seven (7)
`
`business days before the hearing date and filed no later than three (3) days
`
`before the hearing.4
`
`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).
`
`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”
`
`
`
`4 The parties may stipulate to an alternative schedule for serving and filing
`demonstratives, and request that the Board modify the schedule for filing
`and serving demonstratives at least seven (7) business days before the
`hearing date.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`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.5 Any objection to demonstratives that is
`
`not timely presented will be considered waived.
`
`Finally, the parties are reminded that each presenter should identify
`
`clearly and specifically each paper (e.g., by slide or screen number for a
`
`demonstrative) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and
`
`accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all
`
`participants appearing electronically.
`
`
`
`5 If time permits, the Board may schedule a conference call with the parties
`to discuss any filed objections.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 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.6
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6 For example, if a party is experiencing poor video quality, the Board may
`provide alternate dial-in information.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 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. 7
`
`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.8
`
`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
`
`
`
`7 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.
`8 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.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`be conducted by the LEAP practitioner.9 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.
`
`
`
`9 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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that oral argument for this proceeding shall commence at
`
`1PM Eastern Time on September 11, 2023, by VIDEO, and proceed in
`
`the manner set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00996 (Patent 11,016,918 B2)
`IPR2022-00999 (Patent 11,232,054 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`Theodore W. Chandler
`Ferenc Pazmandi
`Brianna L. Potter
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`Eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`Ted.chandler@bakerbotts.com
`Ferenc.pazmandi@bakerbotts.com
`Brianna.potter@bakerbotts.com
`
`Juan C. Yaquian
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`jyaquian@winston.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Hong Annita Zhong
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`hzhong@irell.com
`
`
`11
`
`