throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 60
`
` Entered: June 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC.,
`and BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)1
`Case IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, has been joined as a
`Petitioner in the instant proceeding.
`2 Apple Inc. and Black Swamp IP, LLC, who filed petitions in IPR2016-
`00063 and IPR2016-00167, respectively, have been joined as Petitioners in
`the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)
`
`
`As set forth in the Scheduling Order (Paper 12), oral argument, if
`requested, is scheduled for June 30, 2016, in connection with these
`proceedings. Both parties have requested oral argument. IPR2015-001046,
`Papers 57, 58; IPR2015-001047, Papers 63, 65. The requests are granted.
`There is substantial overlap in the issues raised in the two cases.
`Accordingly, each party will have sixty (60) minutes total time to present
`arguments. The Petitioner in each matter includes multiple business
`entities.3 The multiple business entities in each matter will determine the
`attorney(s), arguments, and allocation of arguments to present at the oral
`hearing in a consolidated argument subject to the sixty minute time limit as
`specified above.
`Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with respect to the
`challenged claims and grounds for which the Board instituted trial in
`IPR2016-01046 and -01047. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to
`Petitioner’s presentation. Both parties may reserve some of their argument
`time for rebuttal, and Patent Owner will be afforded an opportunity to
`provide a closing statement along with any rebuttal.
`Oral argument will commence at 10:00 AM ET on June 30, 2016.
`The hearing will be conducted on the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The hearing will be open to
`the public for in-person attendance, which will be accommodated on a first-
`come-first-serve basis. The Board will provide a court reporter for the
`
`
`3 The Petitioner in IPR2016-001046 includes The Mangrove Partners
`Masters Fund, Ltd. and Apple, Inc. The Petitioner in IPR2016-001047
`includes The Mangrove Partners Masters Fund, Ltd., Apple, Inc., and Black
`Swamp IP, LLC.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)
`hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the
`hearing.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served
`seven business days prior to the hearing. The parties are further directed to
`request a conference call with the Board no later than three business days
`prior to the hearing to resolve any dispute over the propriety of each party’s
`demonstrative exhibits, and to file demonstrative exhibits no later than the
`date of the hearing. The parties are responsible for requesting such a
`conference sufficiently in advance of the hearing to accommodate this
`requirement. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented
`timely will be considered waived. The parties may refer to CBS Interactive
`Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033 (PTAB October 23,
`2013) (Paper 118), and St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board
`of Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27,
`2014) (Paper 65), regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`exhibits.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment are to be made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing. 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.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. Lead or backup counsel, however, may present the
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)
`party’s argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the oral argument, the parties should request a joint telephone
`conference with the Board no later than two business days prior to the oral
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`It is
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 10:00 AM ET on
`June 30, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)
`PETITIONER:
`
`Abraham Kasdan
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`akasdan@wiggin.com
`
`James T. Bailey
`jtb@jtbaileylaw.com
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Thomas A. Broughan, III
`Scott M. Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`IPRNotices@sidley.com
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`Thomas H. Martin
`Wesley C. Meinerding
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`tmartin@martinferraro.com
`docketing@martinferraro.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.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