Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`Entered: September 21, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01337
`Patent 7,136,999 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`Entered: September 21, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01337
`Patent 7,136,999 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01337
`Patent 7,136,999 B1
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. and Patent Owner Uniloc 2017, LLC each
`request oral argument in this inter partes review trial pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70. Papers 12, 14. Uniloc requests one hour of total argument time, 30
`minutes per side. Paper 12, 1. Apple does not specify any proposed
`argument time. Paper 14. Upon consideration, Uniloc’s request is granted,
`and each party shall have 30 minutes of argument time.
`Oral arguments will commence at 1:00 pm Eastern time on October
`21, 2020, by video. The parties are directed to contact the Board at least 10
`days in advance of the argument if there are any concerns about disclosing
`confidential information. The Board will provide a court reporter for the
`argument, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of
`the argument.
`If at any time during the proceeding, you encounter technical or other
`difficulties that fundamentally undermine your ability to adequately
`represent your client, please let the panel know immediately, and
`adjustments will be made.
`To facilitate planning, each party must contact PTAB Hearings at
`PTABHearings@uspto.gov five business days prior to the oral argument
`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 argument
`will be conducted telephonically.
`If one or both parties would prefer to participate in the oral argument
`telephonically, they should notify PTAB Hearings at the above email
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01337
`Patent 7,136,999 B1
`
`address five business days prior to the argument to receive dial-in
`connection information.
`Apple, as Petitioner, bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims
`at issue in the inter partes reviews are unpatentable. Therefore, Apple will
`open the argument by presenting argument regarding the pending grounds of
`unpatentability. Uniloc will then have the opportunity to respond to Apple’s
`arguments. If desired, Apple may reserve rebuttal time, not to exceed half
`the total time allotted. Apple is cautioned that rebuttal time may only be
`used to respond to issues raised during Uniloc’s argument. If requested, the
`Board may permit Uniloc to present a short sur-rebuttal argument to address
`any issues raised during Apple’s rebuttal.
`Demonstrative exhibits shall be served on opposing counsel pursuant
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), and filed with the Board no later than two business
`days before the argument. Upon filing, a copy of the demonstrative exhibits
`should also be emailed to PTABHearings@uspto.gov so that they may be
`provided to the court reporter prior to the video hearing. All pages of
`demonstrative exhibits should be clearly marked with the legend
`“DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE.” The parties are
`directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of
`Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041, Paper 65 (PTAB
`Jan. 27, 2014), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections
`cannot be resolved the parties may file any objections to demonstratives with
`the Board at least two business days before the argument. The objections
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01337
`Patent 7,136,999 B1
`
`should identify with particularity which portions of the demonstrative
`exhibits are subject to objection and include a one-sentence statement of the
`basis for each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`The Board will consider any objections and schedule a conference call if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the
`objections. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely
`presented will be considered waived.
`The Board generally expects lead counsel for each party to be present
`by video at the oral argument. Any counsel of record that is present by
`video may present the party’s argument.
`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 argument, such as a request to
`accommodate visual or hearing impairments, and indicate how the Board
`may accommodate the special request. Any special requests must be
`presented in a separate communication not less than five days before the
`argument.
`The panel will have access to all papers filed with the Board,
`including demonstratives. During the oral argument, counsel 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, counsel are advised to speak slowly and identify
`themselves each time they speak. The parties should be aware that the
`remote nature of the oral argument may also result in an audio lag, so
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01337
`Patent 7,136,999 B1
`
`counsel are advised to observe a pause prior to speaking, so as to avoid
`speaking over others. Please unmute yourself only when speaking.
`Members of the public may request to listen in on this oral argument.
`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 notify the
`Board by contacting PTABHearings@uspto.gov at least five business days
`prior to the oral argument date.
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that oral argument,
`conducted pursuant to the procedures outlined above, shall commence at
`1:00 pm Eastern time on October 21, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01337
`Patent 7,136,999 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`James M. Heintz
`Jonathan Hicks
`DLA PIPER, LLP
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`jonathan.hicks@dlapiper.com
`Apple-Uniloc-IPR@dlapiper.com
`
`
`For 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
`
`6
`
`
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
