`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 81
`Entered: February 10, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`Corning Incorporated
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSM IP Assets B.V.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00043 (Patent 7,171,103)
`Case IPR2013-00044 (Patent 6,961,508)
`Case IPR2013-00045 (Patent 6,339,666)
`Case IPR2013-00046 (Patent 6,110,593)
`Case IPR2013-00047 (Patent 6,438,306)
`Case IPR2013-00048 (Patent 6,298,189)
`Case IPR2013-00049 (Patent 6,298,189)
`Case IPR2013-00050 (Patent 6,323,255)
`Case IPR2013-00052 (Patent 7,276,543)
`Case IPR2013-00053 (Patent 7,276,543)1
`
`Before FRED. E. McKELVEY, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN,
`JENNIFER S. BISK, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and ZHENYU YANG
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` This Order addresses issues that are identical in the ten cases. We
`therefore exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each
`case. The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
` A
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`CONDUCT OF PROCEEDING
`On Corning’s Objections to DSM’s Demonstrative Evidence
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
` consolidated final hearing for all ten cases has been requested and
`
`scheduled for February 11, 2014. See, e.g., IPR2013-00043, Order—Trial
`
`Hearing (Paper 84). On February 4, 2014, Patent Owner filed demonstrative
`
`exhibits for use at the hearing. See, e.g., id.; Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`
`for Hearing (Paper 88). On February 6, 2014, counsel for Petitioner
`
`requested a conference call with the Board to discuss Petitioner’s objections
`
`to the propriety of Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.70. A conference call was held at 11:00 a.m. on February 7, 2014,
`
`between counsel for the parties and Judges Bisk, McKelvey, Obermann,
`
`Kamholz, and Yang. A court reporter was present, and the Board asked
`
`Petitioner to file a transcript of the telephone conference.
`
`Petitioner argued that Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits
`
`improperly include argument and, moreover, are so voluminous that Patent
`
`Owner will be unable to use all of the exhibits within the time allotted for
`
`the hearing. When asked to do so, Petitioner identified no new argument
`
`included in the demonstrative exhibits. Petitioner further argued that Patent
`
`Owner’s demonstrative exhibits should be expunged as inappropriate further
`
`briefing.
`
`Patent Owner responded that the demonstrative exhibits will aid the
`
`Board in following Patent Owner’s presentation at the hearing.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board advised the parties that Patent Owner is permitted to use
`
`the demonstrative exhibits at the hearing. Whether Patent Owner will have
`
`time at the hearing to use each of the demonstrative exhibits is a time
`
`management matter left to counsel for Patent Owner. The Board further
`
`advised the parties that it is premature at this time to decide whether any
`
`demonstrative exhibits should be expunged from the record subsequent to
`
`the hearing.
`
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that demonstrative exhibits filed by Patent Owner on
`
`February 4, 2014, may be used by Patent Owner at the final hearing.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael L. Goldman
`Jeffrey N. Townes
`LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation
`Michael.Goldman@leclairryan.com
`Jeffrey.Townes@leclairryan.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Sharon A. Israel
`Joseph A. Mahoney
`Mayer Brown LLP
`SIsrael@mayerbrown.com
`JMahoney@mayerbrown.com
`
`3
`
`
`
`
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
