Paper 28
`Date: January 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE TORO COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MTD PRODUCTS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases
`IPR2016-00194 (Patent 8,011,458)
`IPR2016-00219 (Patent 8,136,613)
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE TORO COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MTD PRODUCTS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases
`IPR2016-00194 (Patent 8,011,458)
`IPR2016-00219 (Patent 8,136,613)
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00194 (Patent 8,011,458)
`IPR2016-00219 (Patent 8,136,613)
`
`The parties have requested an oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.70. Papers 27, 29.1 The request is granted. The hearing will
`commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on February 7, 2017, on the ninth floor
`of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each requested one hour per case. Due to
`the overlap in subject matter, however, each party will be allocated a grand
`total of 90 minutes for arguments. The parties may budget their 90-minute
`time allocation as they see fit. A single transcript will be taken and all
`statements will be presumed to apply to both proceedings. As such, a party
`need not repeat positions it has expressed with respect to the other case,
`unless it explicitly identifies otherwise during the hearing. The Board will
`provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall be made public and
`constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Per Patent Owner’s request, the hearing format will be: arguments
`from both sides on IPR2016-00194, followed by arguments from both sides
`in IPR2016-00219.2 Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the
`claims at issue in these reviews are unpatentable. Petitioner, therefore, will
`begin by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims and grounds for
`which the Board instituted trial in IPR2016-00194. Patent Owner will then
`respond to Petitioner’s arguments in IPR2016-00194, and present its case for
`any motions it has submitted, as applicable, if it chooses. Petitioner may
`reserve time to reply to arguments presented by Patent Owner. Patent
`Owner may reserve time to reply to arguments presented by Petitioner, if
`
`
`1 IPR2016-00194. Papers 24 and 26 in IPR2016-00219.
`2 Upon agreement and with at least one business day’s notice to the Board,
`the parties may propose a different format, subject to Board approval.
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00194 (Patent 8,011,458)
`IPR2016-00219 (Patent 8,136,613)
`
`any, with respect to the motions it has submitted. We will then, without
`break, proceed with IPR2016-00219 under the same format using the
`remaining time.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven business days before the hearing. The panel requests that
`demonstrative exhibits be filed with the Board at least three business days
`before the hearing. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology
`Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case
`IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), regarding the appropriate
`content of demonstrative exhibits. The Board expects that the parties will
`meet and confer in good faith to resolve any objections to demonstrative
`exhibits, but if such objections cannot be resolved the parties must file any
`objections to demonstratives with the Board at least three business days
`before the hearing. The objections should identify with particularity which
`portions of the demonstrative exhibits are subject to objection, include a
`copy of the objected-to portions, and include a one-sentence statement of the
`reason for each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`The Board will consider any objections and schedule a conference call if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the
`objections. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely
`presented will be considered waived.
`The Board expects a registered practitioner for each party to be
`present at the hearing, although any counsel of record may make the actual
`presentation, in whole or in part.
`Please note that the courtroom has extremely limited seating. Tables
`for counsel are provided and each seat two. The approximately 8 remaining
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00194 (Patent 8,011,458)
`IPR2016-00219 (Patent 8,136,613)
`
`seats in the courtroom are open to the public and are accommodated on a
`first-come, first-served basis. The parties should contact the Board as soon
`as possible if it expects seating capacity issues.
`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 five days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request must be sent to Trials@uspto.gov, any requests not sent specifically
`to that email address will not be considered timely. If the request is not
`received timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the
`hearing.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`IPR2016-00194 (Patent 8,011,458)
`IPR2016-00219 (Patent 8,136,613)
`
`For PETITIONER
`
`Cyrus Morton
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`
`Davis Prange
`dprange@robinskaplan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Cipolla
`jcipolla@calfee.com
`
`Mark McDougall
`mmcdougall@calfee.com
`
`Tracy Johnson
`tjohnson@calfee.com
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
