throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`Paper 41
`Entered: April 7, 2014
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00141 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00142 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00143 (Patent 7,191,299)
` Case IPR2013-00150 (Patent 7,093,086)1
`____________
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK,
`THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and TRENTON A. WARD,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 This paper addresses issues that are identical in the listed cases. The parties are
`not authorized to use this heading style for any subsequent papers.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00141 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00142 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00143 (Patent 7,191,299)
`Case IPR2013-00150 (Patent 7,093,086)
`
`
`
`The Scheduling Orders for these cases set the date for oral hearing to
`May 5, 2014, if hearing is requested by the parties and granted by the Board. Both
`parties have requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Petitioner’s and
`Patent Owner’s request for oral hearing in each of the cases is granted. The four
`cases will be heard together. Each side will have 90 minutes to present arguments
`and can determine for itself how to divide time among the three patents involved.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at
`issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner will open the hearing
`by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for which the Board
`instituted trial. Patent Owner has filed a motion to amend the claims and bears the
`burden of proof with respect to that motion. After Petitioner’s presentation,
`therefore, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s argument and also argue in
`support of its motion to amend. Each side may reserve time to respond to
`arguments presented by the other side with some limitations. More specifically, to
`the extent that Petitioner reserves rebuttal time, it may respond to Patent Owner’s
`presentation on all matters. To the extent that Patent Owner reserves rebuttal time,
`however, it may respond only to Petitioner’s arguments opposing the motion to
`amend.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM on May 5, 2014, on the ninth floor
`of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The Board
`will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the reporter’s transcript will
`constitute the official record of the hearing. The hearing will be open to the public
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00141 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00142 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00143 (Patent 7,191,299)
`Case IPR2013-00150 (Patent 7,093,086)
`
`
`
`for in-person attendance that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
`basis.
`
`The parties are reminded that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(7), a proponent of
`deposition testimony must file such testimony as an exhibit. The Board will not
`consider any deposition testimony that has not been so filed.
`Furthermore, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be
`served at least five business days before the hearing date. The Board requests also
`that such exhibits be filed at the Board at least five business days before the
`hearing. The parties must file any objections to the demonstratives with the Board
`at least two business days before the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived. The objections
`should identify with particularity which demonstratives are subject to objection,
`and include a short (one sentence or less) statement of the reason for each
`objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted. The Board will
`consider the objections and schedule a conference if deemed necessary.
`Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the objections until after the oral
`argument. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc.
`v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB
`January 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits.
`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. If
`either party expects that its lead counsel will not be attending the oral argument,
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00141 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00142 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00143 (Patent 7,191,299)
`Case IPR2013-00150 (Patent 7,093,086)
`
`
`
`the parties should initiate a joint telephone conference with the Board no later than
`two business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the matter.
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be honored unless
`presented in a separate communication not less than five days before the hearing
`directed to the above email address.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00141 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00142 (Patent 6,931,558)
`Case IPR2013-00143 (Patent 7,191,299)
`Case IPR2013-00150 (Patent 7,093,086)
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Michael Q. Lee
`Byron L. Pickard
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`& FOX PLLC
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`bpickard-ptab@skgf.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Lawrence G. Kurland
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`lgkurland@bryancave.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket