`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: August 25, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE CORPORATION, AND ZTE (USA), INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-014801
`Patent 8,867,472 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA),
`Inc. filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00982, and have been
`joined to the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01480
`Patent 8,867,472
`
`
`A conference call was held on August 25, 2017, among counsel for
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“Patent Owner”), counsel for
`
`Apple Inc., counsel for HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE
`
`Corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”), and Judges Moore,
`
`Anderson, and Hudalla. Patent Owner requested the call to discuss its
`
`objections to the demonstrative exhibits Petitioner proposes to use at the
`
`final hearing set for August 30, 2017.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s slides 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19 (the
`
`“slides”), which were provided to the panel prior to the conference call.
`
`Patent Owner’s objection is based on a strict reading of CBS Interactive Inc.
`
`v. Wireless Scis. LLC, Case IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper
`
`118), which we cited in our Trial Hearing Order (Paper 20, 3) for guidance
`
`regarding the proper content of demonstrative exhibits. Specifically, Patent
`
`Owner’s objection is that demonstratives including anything other than exact
`
`reproductions and verbatim excerpts from papers already of record are
`
`improper. Notwithstanding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledges that
`
`the slides do not present any new arguments.
`
`Demonstrative exhibits help explain the evidence already in the record
`
`and do not themselves constitute substantive evidence. It is undisputed that
`
`the slides do not contain any new argument and are an aid to understanding
`
`arguments already made by Petitioner. For example, each of the slides
`
`includes a citation to Petitioner’s arguments of record. We determine that
`
`the slides are a permissible use of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01480
`Patent 8,867,472
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s objection to slides 9, 10, 14, 15, and
`
`19 is overruled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Clint S. Wilkins
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PETITIONERS HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE CORPORATION, AND ZTE (USA), INC.:
`
`Steven A. Moore
`Brian Nash
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Matthew C. Juren
`Barry J. Bumgardner
`Donald Puckett
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`matthew@nelbum.com
`barry@nelbum.com
`puckett@nelbum.com
`
`3
`
`
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
