Paper 21
`
`
` Entered: January 10, 2017
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION and
`PROTECTION ONE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002851
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and WILLIAM M. FINK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`Petitioner, RPX Corporation and Protection One, Inc., and Patent Owner,
`MD Security Systems Solutions, LLC, request a hearing in the above proceeding
`
`
`1 Protection One, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-01235, has been joined as a
`party to the petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
` Entered: January 10, 2017
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION and
`PROTECTION ONE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002851
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and WILLIAM M. FINK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`Petitioner, RPX Corporation and Protection One, Inc., and Patent Owner,
`MD Security Systems Solutions, LLC, request a hearing in the above proceeding
`
`
`1 Protection One, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-01235, has been joined as a
`party to the petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). IPR2016-00285, Papers 19, 20. The requests are
`granted.
`This proceeding will be heard on February 15, 2017, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
`Each party will have 30 minutes of total argument time. Petitioner bears the
`ultimate burden of proof that the claims at issue in this review are unpatentable.
`Therefore, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with regard to the
`challenged claims on which basis we instituted trial. Thereafter, Patent Owner will
`respond to Petitioner’s case.
`After that, Petitioner may make use of the rest of its time responding to
`Patent Owner. To the extent Petitioner reserves time, it may respond to matters
`raised in Patent Owner’s presentation. A fundamental rule governing our hearings
`is that the party bearing the burden of persuasion on an issue may speak last on that
`issue. There is no motion to amend or motion to exclude pending in this
`proceeding. Therefore, Patent Owner may not reserve time.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance in Hearing
`Room A on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia. In-person attendance will be accommodated on a first-come,
`first-served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served seven
`business days prior to the hearing. The parties shall not file any demonstrative
`exhibits in this case without prior authorization, but should e-mail demonstratives
`to the Board via Trials@uspto.gov three business days before the hearing.
`The parties shall meet and confer with each in other in good faith regarding
`any objections to demonstrative exhibits in the proceeding. For any issue that
`cannot be resolved after conferring with the opposing party, the parties may file
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`jointly a one-page list of objections at least two business days prior to the hearing.
`The list should identify with particularity which demonstrative exhibits are subject
`to objection and include a short statement (no more than one sentence) of the
`reason for each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted. We
`will consider the objections and schedule a conference call if necessary.
`Otherwise, we will reserve ruling on the objections until the hearing or after the
`hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will
`be considered waived.
`The parties are directed to CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent
`Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 2–5 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper
`118), regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. The parties are
`reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each
`demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the
`hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcripts.
`The Board expects lead counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner to be
`present at the hearing, although any back-up counsel may make the actual
`presentation, in whole or in part. If lead counsel for a party will not be in
`attendance at the hearing, the Board should be notified via a joint conference call
`no later than two days prior to the hearing to discuss the matter.
`We observe that the parties have requested audio-visual equipment,
`including laptop and screen for displaying documents. See Papers 19, 20.
`Requests for audio-visual equipment at the hearing must be made five days in
`advance of the hearing date. The requests must be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the
`requests are not received timely, equipment may not be available on the day of the
`hearing. Further, if the parties have questions as to whether demonstrative exhibits
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`would be sufficiently visible and available to all of the judges, the parties are
`invited to contact the Board at 571-272-9797.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00285
`Patent 7,864,983 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Richard Giunta
`Daniel Wehner
`Randy Pritzker
`Rgiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`Dwehner-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`Rpritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG LLP
`jangell@fawlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`5
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
