`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZENTIAN LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2023-00037
`U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2023-00037
`U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`Pursuant to the Board’s June 12, 2023, Scheduling Order (Paper 11),
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests oral argument for the trial currently scheduled on
`
`March 13, 2024. Petitioner requests a total of forty-five (45) minutes of argument
`
`time for each Party. Petitioner proposes holding the hearing in-person at the San Jose
`
`regional Patent Office. Petitioner has conferred with counsel for Patent Owner, who
`
`agrees to this in-person argument request.
`
`Alternative Proposal for Oral Argument
`
`If the Board is inclined to consider an alternative proposal for the oral
`
`argument, Petitioner proposes that this argument for the ’140 Patent (IPR2023-
`
`00037) be consolidated with the argument for the related patent, USPN 7,587,319
`
`(IPR2023-00033), currently scheduled for March 11, 2024.
`
`Many of the issues argued by both Parties in the briefing overlap between the
`
`two IPRs. There are some arguments distinct to a respective one of the IPRs (e.g.,
`
`Patent Owner’s argument for the ’140 Patent, IPR2023-00037, regarding
`
`Limitations 1(d)-1(e) at Paper 19, 28-36), but Petitioner submits that these distinct
`
`issues can be identified in an organized manner during the consolidated argument.
`
`Petitioner submits that a consolidated argument would be the most efficient use of
`
`the Board’s resources and prevent duplicative hearing transcripts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2023-00037
`U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`Petitioner proposes a total argument time of sixty (60) minutes for each Party
`
`for the consolidated argument, and that the argument be scheduled for March 11,
`
`2024. If the consolidated argument is scheduled for March 11, 2024, then this allows
`
`the argument for USPN 10,839,789 (IPR2023-00036) currently scheduled for March
`
`13, 2024, to remain on its scheduled date. Thus, the argument for IPR2023-00036
`
`would remain on March 13, 2024, such that the Board and Parties would have a
`
`single argument on March 13th for the ’789 Patent and a single consolidated
`
`argument on March 11th for the ’319 and ’140 Patents.
`
`The below table provides Petitioner’s proposal for the five arguments related
`
`to the Apple v. Zentian set of IPRs:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2023-00037
`U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioner specifies the following issues,
`
`without intent to waive consideration of any issue not requested, to be argued for this
`
`proceeding:
`
`1. Whether Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,374,219 to Jiang (“Jiang”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,428,803 to Chen, et al. (“Chen”);
`
`2. Whether Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are obvious over Jiang, Chen, and U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0053974 to Lucke, et al. (“Lucke”);
`
`3. Whether Claim 4 is obvious over Jiang, Chen, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,983,180 to Robinson (“Robinson”);
`
`4. Whether Claim 4 is obvious over Jiang, Chen, Lucke, and Robinson;
`
`5. Whether Claim 6 is obvious over Jiang, Chen, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,036,539 to Wrench, Jr., et al. (“Wrench”);
`
`6. Whether Claim 6 is obvious over Jiang, Chen, Lucke, and Wrench;
`
`7.
`
`Any claim constructions, unpatentability grounds, or other issues raised in
`
`the Petition or Petitioner Reply, the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, the Patent
`
`Owner Response, the Patent Owner Sur-Reply, or the Board’s Institution Decision;
`
`8.
`
`Any issues regarding motions to exclude or motions to strike that may be
`
`filed or pending; and
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any issues otherwise raised by the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2023-00037
`U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /s/
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No. 52,583
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`
`
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2023-00037
`U.S. Patent No. 10,971,140
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on January 19,
`
`2024, the foregoing Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument was served via
`
`electronic filing with the Board and via Electronic Mail on the following
`
`practitioners of record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`Peter C. Knops (peter@noroozipc.com)
`Kayvan B. Noroozi (kayvan@noroozipc.com)
`Katherine Rhoades (katherine.rhoades@bartlitbeck.com)
`Nevin Gewertz (nevin.gewertz@bartlitbeck.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /s/
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No. 52,583
`
`
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`