Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: September 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases: IPR2016-012541
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Request for Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`We instituted inter partes review (Paper 15)2 in the proceedings listed
`
`in the Appendix and issued a consolidated Scheduling Order (Paper 16),
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the inter partes reviews listed in
`the Appendix. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in all of the cases.
`The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in
`subsequent papers.
`2 Paper numbers are provided for IPR2016-01254, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: September 1, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases: IPR2016-012541
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Request for Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`We instituted inter partes review (Paper 15)2 in the proceedings listed
`
`in the Appendix and issued a consolidated Scheduling Order (Paper 16),
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the inter partes reviews listed in
`the Appendix. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in all of the cases.
`The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in
`subsequent papers.
`2 Paper numbers are provided for IPR2016-01254, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`which sets the date for oral hearing to September 19, 2017, if oral hearing is
`
`requested by either party and granted by the Board. The parties requested an
`
`oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 in each of the inter partes review
`
`proceedings listed in the Appendix. See, e.g., Paper 40; Paper 42. Upon
`
`consideration by the panel, the parties’ requests are granted.
`
`The hearing will commence at 10:00 AM Eastern Time, on
`
`September 19, 2017, and will be conducted at the UPSTO Headquarters,
`
`Ninth Floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`
`Virginia, 22314.3 The parties will be given a one hour break at 12:00 PM
`
`Eastern Time. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person
`
`attendance that will be accommodated on a first come first serve basis.
`
`The parties have provided their proposals for the oral hearing. Upon
`
`review of the record, we grant amounts of time set forth in the table below
`
`for oral argument.
`
`IPRs
`YMAX’s IPR2016-01256,
`IPR2016-01258, IPR2016-01260
`Cisco’s IPR2016-01254 and
`IPR2016-01257
`Bright House Networks’ IPR2016-
`01259, IPR2016-01261, IPR2016-
`01262, IPR2016-01263
`
`
`
`Minutes for Oral Argument
`60 minutes per side
`
`30 minutes per side
`
`60 minutes per side
`
`Because Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable, each Petitioner will proceed first to
`
`present its case as to the challenged claims of the challenged patents and
`
`
`3 See https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/alexandria-virginia-
`headquarters for additional information.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`instituted grounds of unpatentability. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond
`
`to Petitioner’s case and present its case on its motions to amend. After that,
`
`Petitioner will make use of the rest of its time for its rebuttal, responding to
`
`Patent Owner’s specific arguments presented at the oral hearing, as well as
`
`responding to Patent Owner’s case on its motions to amend. Patent Owner,
`
`then, will make use of the rest of its time for its rebuttal on only its motions
`
`to amend. No live testimony from any witness will be taken at the oral
`
`argument.
`
`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.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served no
`
`later than seven business days before the hearing date. They shall be filed
`
`with the Board no later than five business days prior to the hearing date. The
`
`parties must initiate a conference call with the Board at least three business
`
`days prior to the hearing to resolve any dispute over the propriety of each
`
`party’s demonstrative exhibits. 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), for
`
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. See
`
`also CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, Case
`
`IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118) (The Board has the
`
`discretion to limit the parties’ demonstratives to pages in the record should
`
`there be no easy resolution to objections over demonstratives.).
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at oral
`
`hearing, although any backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in
`
`whole or in part. If lead counsel for either party is unable to attend the oral
`
`argument, the Board should be notified via a joint telephone conference call
`
`no later than five business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the
`
`matter.
`
`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 transcript will be entered in the record of these proceedings.
`
`Any requests regarding special equipment or needs, such as for audio
`
`visual equipment, should be directed to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for
`
`audio-visual equipment are to be made at least five business days in advance
`
`of the hearing date.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Patrick McPherson
`Christopher Tyson
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`jtyson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brent Bumgardner
`John Murphy
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`APPENDIX4
`
`U.S. Patent
`No.
`
`Inter Partes
`Review
`
`7,764,777 B2 IPR2016-01258
`IPR2016-01262
`8,155,298 B2 IPR2016-01256
`IPR2016-01259
`IPR2016-01263
`8,457,113 B2 IPR2016-01254
`IPR2016-01257
`IPR2016-01260
`IPR2016-01261
`
`Petitioner’s
`Oral Hearing
`Request
`Paper 44
`Paper 49
`Paper 39
`Paper 47
`Paper 51
`Paper 40
`Paper 43
`Paper 44
`Paper 49
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Oral Hearing
`Request
`Paper 43
`Paper 48
`Paper 38
`Paper 46
`Paper 50
`Paper 42
`Paper 42
`Paper 43
`Paper 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Bright House Networks, LLC, WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, Knology of
`Florida, Inc., and Birch Communications are Petitioner in IPR2016-01259,
`-01261, -01262, and -01263.
`
`YMax Corporation is Petitioner in IPR2016-01256, -01258, and -01260.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. is Petitioner in IPR2016-01254 and -01257.
`
`
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
