`Date: August 11, 2015
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
` INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00548
`Case IPR2014-00552
` Case IPR2014-005531
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Request for Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`The Scheduling Order for these cases sets the date for oral hearing as
`September 11, 2015, if a hearing is requested by the parties and granted by
`the Board. Patent Owner has requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this form of caption.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00548
`Case IPR2014-00552
`Case IPR2014-00553
`§ 42.70 in IPR2014-00548. Both parties have requested oral hearing
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 in IPR2014-00552 and IPR2015-00553. The
`parties’ requests for oral hearing are granted.
`
`Petitioner will have a combined 90 minutes to present argument in all
`three cases. Patent Owner will have a combined 90 minutes to respond.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owners’ claims at
`issue in these reviews are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner will open the
`hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for which the
`Board instituted trial in IPR2014-00548. After Petitioner’s presentation,
`Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner may reserve
`rebuttal time to respond to arguments presented by Patent Owner.
`Following a brief recess, Petitioner will present its case regarding the
`challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial in IPR2014-00552 and
`IPR2014-00553. After Petitioner’s presentation, Patent Owner will respond
`to Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`arguments presented by Patent Owner.
`Patent Owner has requested a separate hearing for IPR2014-00548.
`Patent Owner also has requested a separate argument directed to the issue of
`whether the Webster reference is disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(c). Those requests are denied. There will be one hearing only.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner may determine for themselves how to divide
`their 90 minutes among the patents and the issues involved.
`The hearing will commence at 1 P.M. on September 11, 2015, 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00548
`Case IPR2014-00552
`Case IPR2014-00553
`hearing will be open to the public 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, demonstrative exhibits must be served at least seven
`business days before the hearing date. The parties also shall provide a
`courtesy copy of any demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least five
`business days prior to the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`The parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding
`without prior authorization from the Board.
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00548
`Case IPR2014-00552
`Case IPR2014-00553
`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. The parties may divide argument among counsel as they wish.
`Should there be any disagreement among the parties on the division of
`argument, the parties shall meet and confer in advance of the hearing to try
`to resolve the dispute and if necessary contact the Board for assistance.
`If any 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 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 IPR2014-00548
`Case IPR2014-00552
`Case IPR2014-00553
`PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`axf@fr.com
`
`
`Jeremy Monaldo
`IPR27410-0021IP2@fr.com
`
`
`Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr.
`IPR27410-0021IP2@fr.com
`
`Adam R. Shartzer
`IPR27410-0021IP2@fr.com
`
`David Holt
`IPR27410-0021IP2@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Herbert Hart
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Peter McAndrews
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`James Hietala
`jhietala@intven.com
`
`
`Tim Seeley
`tim@intven.com
`
`
`Michael Carrozzza
`mcarrozza@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Aaron Barkoff
`abarkoff@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`5