Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: January 30, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2) 1
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, SHARON FENICK, and
`MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Setting Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Date: January 30, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2) 1
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, SHARON FENICK, and
`MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Setting Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`
`I. ORAL ARGUMENT
`In each of the captioned proceedings, Meta Platforms, Inc.
`(“Petitioner”) and Angel Technologies Group LLC (“Patent Owner”) jointly
`requested an in-person oral argument held in Alexandria, Virginia pursuant
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). Paper 31.2 The parties asked to present arguments
`in a single hearing covering each proceeding. Id. In accordance with the
`terms set forth in this Order, we grant the parties’ joint request.
`
`A. Time and Format3
`Oral arguments will commence at 10:00 AM Eastern Time on
`February 13, 2024 on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.4 The Board will provide a court
`reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the
`official record of the hearing.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each requested ninety minutes of
`argument time per side. Paper 31. Having reviewed the requests and other
`papers filed by each party, we determine that each party will have a total of
`ninety (90) minutes to present arguments at the hearing. 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
`
`2 For purposes, we refer to the paper filed in IPR2023-00057, but a similar
`paper was filed in each captioned proceeding.
`3 If a party is no longer able to appear in-person for the hearing, the party
`must contact PTABHearings@uspto.gov as soon as possible.
`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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`Petitioner’s arguments. 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.
`Rebuttal and sur-rebuttal must be responsive to arguments by the
`opposing party in its immediately preceding presentation. In addition, the
`parties may only rely upon evidence and present arguments already of record
`in this proceeding, and may not present new arguments or evidence at the
`hearing.
`The parties may request a pre-hearing conference in advance of the
`hearing. See CTPG 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 oral 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
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstratives shall be served on
`opposing counsel at least seven (7) business days before the hearing date and
`filed with the Board no later than three (3) business days before the hearing.6
`
`5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`6 The parties may stipulate to an alternative schedule for serving
`demonstratives. The parties may not alter the time for filing demonstratives
`with the Board.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`
`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 86; 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”
`argument or evidence or, instead, contains only that which is developed in
`the existing record.
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`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.
`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.
`
`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.
`
`D. 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
`
`
`7 If time permits, the Board may schedule a conference call with the parties
`to discuss any filed objections.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`notify the Board at Trials@uspto.gov at least ten (10) business days prior to
`the hearing date as noted above.
`
`E. 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.
`
`F. 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.8
`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
`
`8 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.
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`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.9
`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.10 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
`
`
`9 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.
`10 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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`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.
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that oral argument for this proceeding shall commence at
`10:00 AM Eastern Time on February 13, 2024, at USPTO Headquarters, in a
`hearing room located on the 9th floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and proceed in the manner set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`David M. Tennant
`Alan M. Billharz
`Chitrajit Chandrashekar
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`lisa.nguyen@allenovery.com
`david.tennant@allenovery.com
`alan.billharz@allenovery.com
`chitrajit.chandrashekar@allenovery.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott W. Hejny
`Arvind Jairam
`Eliza Beeney
`Kaylee Hoffner
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`shejny@mckoolsmith.com
`ajairam@mckoolsmith.com
`ebeeney@mckoolsmith.com
`khoffner@mckoolsmith.com
`
`9
`
`
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
