Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: March 16, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00251 (Patent 6,933,049 B2)
`IPR2019-00510 (Patent 6,868,079 B1)1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the inter partes reviews listed
`above. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in both cases. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent papers.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: March 16, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00251 (Patent 6,933,049 B2)
`IPR2019-00510 (Patent 6,868,079 B1)1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the inter partes reviews listed
`above. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in both cases. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251(Patent 6,933,049 B2)
`IPR2019-00510 (Patent 6,868,079 B1)
`
`
`We instituted trial in the above captioned proceedings. Paper 7.2 A
`Scheduling Order set the oral hearing for April 23, 2020, if requested by the
`parties and granted by the Board. Paper 8. Both parties have requested oral
`hearing in both proceedings. Papers 17, 18. The requests are granted
`according to the terms set forth below.
`Oral arguments will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time, on April 23,
`2020, by video. Arguments for IPR2019-00251 will be heard first, followed
`by arguments for IPR2019-00510. The parties are directed to contact the
`Board at least 10 days in advance of the hearing if there are any concerns
`about disclosing confidential information. The Board will provide a court
`reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the
`official record of the hearing.
`To facilitate planning, each party must contact PTAB Hearings at
`(571) 272-9797 five business days prior to the oral 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 to be
`used 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 oral hearing will be conducted
`telephonically.
`If one or both parties would prefer to participate in the oral hearing
`telephonically, they should notify PTAB Hearings at the above telephone
`number five business days prior to the hearing to receive dial-in connection
`information.
`
`2 For convenience, we cite to papers in IPR2019-00251. Similar papers
`were filed in IPR2019-00510.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251(Patent 6,933,049 B2)
`IPR2019-00510 (Patent 6,868,079 B1)
`
`
`Each party will have forty-five minutes total time to present its
`arguments per proceeding. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of
`persuasion that the claims at issue are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`Petitioner will therefore open the hearing by presenting its arguments
`regarding patentability. Patent Owner may then respond to Petitioner’s
`arguments. Each party may reserve up to half of its allocated time to
`respond to arguments presented by the opposing party, with Petitioner
`replying first, followed by Patent Owner.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), any demonstrative exhibits must be
`served on opposing counsel at least seven (7) business days before the
`hearing. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division,
`Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate
`content of demonstrative exhibits. The parties shall file demonstrative
`exhibits with the Board at least two business days prior to the hearing.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if any such
`objections cannot be resolved, the parties must file any objections to the
`demonstratives with the Board at least two business days before the hearing.
`The objections should identify with particularity which portions of the
`demonstratives are subject to objection, include a copy of the objected-to
`portions, and include a short, one-sentence statement 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251(Patent 6,933,049 B2)
`IPR2019-00510 (Patent 6,868,079 B1)
`
`the hearing. Any objection that is not timely presented will be considered
`waived.
`We note that demonstrative exhibits are only an aid to oral argument
`and are not evidence of record in the proceeding, and should be clearly
`marked as such. For example, each slide may be marked with the words
`“DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE” in the footer. The
`parties also are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and
`specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) or
`page of the record referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and
`accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
`The Board generally expects lead counsel for each party to be present
`by video at the oral hearing. Any counsel of record may present the party’s
`argument as long as that counsel is present by video.
`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 oral hearing, such as a request to
`accommodate visual or hearing impairments, and indicate how the PTAB
`may accommodate the special request. Any special requests must be
`presented in a separate communication not less than five (5) days before the
`hearing.
`The panel will have access to all papers filed with the Board,
`including demonstratives. During the oral hearing, the parties are advised to
`identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative referenced (e.g., by slide
`or screen number) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s
`transcript. In addition, the parties are advised to identify themselves each
`time they speak. Furthermore, the remote nature of the oral hearing may
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00251(Patent 6,933,049 B2)
`IPR2019-00510 (Patent 6,868,079 B1)
`
`also result in an audio lag, and so the parties are advised to observe a pause
`prior to speaking, so as to avoid speaking over others
`It is:
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on
`April 23, 2020.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto J. Devoto
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.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
