Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: October 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC.1, LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, U.S.A., INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-015222
`Patent 6,151,493
`____________
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`AMENDED ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`1 In updated Mandatory Notices, Google, Inc., indicates that it has converted
`from a corporation to a limited liability company, Google LLC, and that
`Google LLC is now the real party in interest. Paper 26. The caption is
`amended accordingly.
`2 Case IPR2017-01017 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: October 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC.1, LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, U.S.A., INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-015222
`Patent 6,151,493
`____________
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`AMENDED ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`1 In updated Mandatory Notices, Google, Inc., indicates that it has converted
`from a corporation to a limited liability company, Google LLC, and that
`Google LLC is now the real party in interest. Paper 26. The caption is
`amended accordingly.
`2 Case IPR2017-01017 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01522
`Patent 6,151,493
`
`The Scheduling Order set November 1, 2017, as the date for oral
`argument, if requested by the parties and granted by the Board. Paper 9.
`We previously granted the parties’ requests for oral argument, scheduling
`the hearing for November 1. Paper 24. Subsequently, the parties jointly
`requested that we move the argument by approximately one month and
`agreed to November 28, 2017.
`The parties’ request to move the oral argument is granted. Oral
`arguments will commence at 1:30 pm Eastern Time on November 28, 2017,
`on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia. Each side is allotted forty-five (45) minutes total to present its
`case. Petitioners3 will open the hearing by presenting their arguments
`regarding the challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial.
`Petitioners may reserve time for rebuttal arguments. Patent Owner will then
`respond to Petitioners’ arguments. Petitioners may then present rebuttal
`arguments. Patent Owner may not respond to Petitioners’ rebuttal
`arguments. No other arguments or motions may be presented.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. The
`
`
`3 As noted in our Order granting the Motion for Joinder filed by Petitioners
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., in IPR2017-01017, the Samsung and Huawei
`petitioners agreed that “Samsung and Huawei should not be permitted to
`make their own arguments, jointly or individually, at the oral argument if
`Google or LG is a party at the time without prior authorization from the
`Board.” Paper 19, 6. If the Samsung and Huawei petitioners seek to present
`separate argument, they must first meet and confer with the Google and LG
`petitioners and Patent Owner to attempt to reach agreement and then
`schedule a teleconference with the panel to seek authorization.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01522
`Patent 6,151,493
`
`hearing will be open to the public via in-person attendance on a first-come,
`first-served basis.
`At least seven (7) 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). The parties should attempt to work
`out any objections to demonstratives prior to involving the Board. At least
`two (2) business days prior to the hearing, the parties shall file the
`demonstrative exhibits with the Board. See id. The parties are directed to
`St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the
`University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014)
`(Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`exhibits. The parties must initiate a conference call with the Board at least
`two (2) business days before the hearing to present any objection regarding
`the propriety of any demonstrative exhibit. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived. As
`demonstrative exhibits are not themselves evidence, 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 reminded that each 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 transcript. The parties also should note that at least one member
`of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically from a remote
`location and that if a demonstrative is not filed or otherwise made fully
`available or visible to the judge presiding over the hearing, that
`demonstrative will not be considered. The parties also should note that a
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01522
`Patent 6,151,493
`
`panel member appearing remotely will not be able to hear the parties unless
`they speak into the microphone at the podium. If the parties have questions
`as to whether demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible and
`available to all of the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board at
`(571) 272-9797.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the hearing. If a party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the oral arguments, the parties should initiate a joint telephone
`conference with the Board no later than two (2) business days prior to the
`oral hearing to discuss the matter. Any counsel of record, however, may
`present the party’s argument.
`The parties are reminded to direct their requests for audio-visual
`equipment to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be
`honored unless presented in a separate communication directed to the above
`email address not less than five (5) days before the hearing. If the request is
`not received timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the
`hearing.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that oral argument for this proceeding shall take place
`beginning at 1:30 pm Eastern Time on November 28, 2017, on the ninth
`floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01522
`Patent 6,151,493
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`J. Steven Baughman
`Steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Kathryn N. Hong
`Kathryn.hong@ropesgray.com
`
`W. Karl Renner
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`renner@fr.com
`
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz
`rozylowicz@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Brent Bumgardner
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`
`John Murphy
`murphy@nelbum.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
