Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: August 30, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CXLOYALTY, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2018-00037
`Patent 7,134,087 B2
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed updated mandatory notice information indicating that it
`changed its name from Connexions Loyalty, Inc. to cxLoyalty, Inc.
`Paper 30. Accordingly, the caption for this proceeding has been changed.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: August 30, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CXLOYALTY, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MARITZ HOLDINGS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2018-00037
`Patent 7,134,087 B2
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed updated mandatory notice information indicating that it
`changed its name from Connexions Loyalty, Inc. to cxLoyalty, Inc.
`Paper 30. Accordingly, the caption for this proceeding has been changed.
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00037
`Patent 7,134,087 B2
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner requested a hearing in the above
`proceeding pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). See Papers 27, 29. The
`requests are granted.
`Each party will have sixty (60) minutes of total time to present
`arguments. Petitioner will proceed first to present its case as to the alleged
`unpatentability of the challenged claims and proposed substitute claims in
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, and may reserve rebuttal time (no more
`than thirty (30) minutes). Patent Owner then will respond to Petitioner’s
`presentation and present its case as to whether its Motion to Amend meets
`the requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.221, and may reserve rebuttal
`time (no more than fifteen (15) minutes). Petitioner then may respond to
`Patent Owner’s arguments. Finally, Patent Owner may present a brief
`sur-rebuttal responding to Petitioner’s rebuttal arguments only.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on September
`17, 2019. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance 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.
`In its hearing request, Petitioner also states that “a pre-hearing
`conference would be appropriate 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.”
`Paper 29, 3 n.1. The parties shall confer with each other and send to the
`Board, by email to Trials@uspto.gov, a list of times when both parties are
`available for a conference call during the week of September 9–13, 2019.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00037
`Patent 7,134,087 B2
`
`The parties also may include in the email a list of issues that they would like
`to discuss during the call. See Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018),
`19–20, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
`2018_Revised_Trial_Practice_Guide.pdf.
`Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties may agree on a date
`for service of demonstrative exhibits. The parties shall confer with each
`other regarding any objections to demonstrative exhibits and file
`demonstrative exhibits with the Board at least two business days prior to the
`hearing. For any issue that cannot be resolved after conferring with the
`opposing party, the parties may file 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. Each party also shall provide a hard copy
`of its demonstrative exhibits to the court reporter at the hearing.
`The parties are directed to St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v.
`Board of Regents of the Univ. of Mich., Case IPR2013-00041 (PTAB
`Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), 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 transcript.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00037
`Patent 7,134,087 B2
`
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s
`argument, in whole or in part, as long as that counsel is present in person. If
`either party expects that its lead counsel will not be attending the oral
`argument, 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.
`A party may request remote video attendance for one or more of its
`other attendees to view the hearing from any U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office location. The available locations include the Texas Regional Office
`in Dallas, Texas; the Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado;
`the Elijah J. McCoy Midwest Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan; and the
`Silicon Valley Office in San Jose, CA. To request remote video viewing, a
`party must send an email message to Trials@uspto.gov ten business days
`prior to the hearing, indicating the requested location and the number
`planning to view the hearing from the remote location. The Board will
`notify the parties if the request for video viewing is granted. Note that it
`may not be possible to grant the request due to the availability of resources.
`Any special requests for audio-visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov. A party may also indicate any special requests related to
`appearing at an in-person oral hearing, such as a request to accommodate
`physical needs that limit mobility or 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
`(5) days before the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00037
`Patent 7,134,087 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Richard Wydeven
`Steven M. Lieberman
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`rwydeven@rfem.com
`slieberman@rfem.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert M. Evans, Jr.
`Michael J. Hartley
`Micah T. Uptegrove
`STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
`robert.evans@stinson.com
`michael.hartley@stinson.com
`muptegrove@senniger.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
