throbber

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`FILED VIA PRPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`Petitioner Qualtrics, LLC respectfully requests oral argument under 37
`
`CFR § 42.70. The PTAB has already scheduled an oral hearing for April 16,
`
`2015 and stated that the hearing will be for five trials: IPR2014-00366 (the
`
`instant IPR), and IRP2014-00356, IPR2014-00406, IPR2014-00420, and
`
`IPR2014-00421. (Paper 16.) The five trials involve five related patents. Because
`
`of the overlapping issues, Qualtrics requests that the PTAB provide a
`
`consolidated oral argument for all five trials in which Qualtrics is given two
`
`hours to present its arguments. Qualtrics also requests permission to use a
`
`computer, projector, and screen to display possible demonstratives and exhibits.
`
`For the instant IPR, Qualtrics specifies the following issues to be argued:
`
`I. The grounds on which the instant IPR trial was instituted, i.e.:
`
`claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17–19, 22, 25–27, 30, and 33 of
`
`the ’805 Patent for obviousness over CustomerSat, Medinets,
`
`and the HTML Spec. This may include, for example, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of the ’805 Patent and claim
`
`construction of the terms of the ’805 Patent.
`
`II. Patent Owner OpinionLab Inc.’s assertions regarding alleged
`
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`III. Qualtrics’s Motion to Exclude Evidence.
`
`IV. Any Motion to Exclude Evidence filed by OpinionLab.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Dated: February 27, 2015
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert Steinberg
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the parties’ agreement to electronic service
`
`on August 21, 2014, I certify that on February 27, 2015, a copy of:
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`was served by e-mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel, as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`Timothy P. Cremen
`timothycremen@paulhastings.com
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Robert Steinberg
`
` Robert Steinberg
`
` Reg. No. 33144
`
` Neil A. Rubin
`
` Reg. No. 67030
`
` Jonathan M. Jackson (admitted pro hac vice)
`
` Philip X. Wang (admitted pro hac vice)
`
` Latham & Watkins LLP
`
` 355 South Grand Avenue
`
` Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`
` 213.485.1234
`
` 213.891.8763 (Fax)
`
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`

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