throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 54
`Entered: November 8, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT DRONES, S.A.S. and PARROT INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`QFO LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`_______________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use a caption identifying multiple
`proceedings.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`
`The parties have requested oral argument pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70. See Papers 45, 46 in Case IPR2016-01550; Papers 41, 42 in Case
`IPR2016-01559. The requests are granted.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on
`November 15, 2017, 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, and in-person attendance will be
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. The Board will provide a
`court reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the
`official record of the hearing.
`Each party will have 45 minutes of total argument time. Petitioners
`bear the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at issue in this review are
`unpatentable. Therefore, at the hearing, Petitioners will proceed first to
`present its arguments. Petitioners may reserve rebuttal time. Thereafter,
`Patent Owner will argue its opposition to Petitioners’ case. Petitioners may
`then use any time Petitioners reserved to rebut Patent Owner’s opposition.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served on
`November 13, 2017. The parties may refer to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology
`Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan,
`IPR2013-00041, slip op. 2–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), regarding
`the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. The parties shall meet
`and confer to discuss any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If any issues
`regarding demonstratives remain unresolved after the parties meet and
`confer, the parties shall file jointly a one-page list of objections to the
`demonstrative exhibits at least one business day before the hearing. For
`each objection, the list must identify with particularity the demonstratives
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`subject to the objection and include a short, one-sentence statement
`explaining the objection. The panel will consider the objections and
`schedule a conference call if necessary. Otherwise, rulings on the objections
`will be reserved until the hearing or after the hearing. Any objection to
`demonstrative exhibits not presented timely will be considered waived.
`The parties shall email their demonstratives to Trials@uspto.gov
`before or on November 13, 2017. The parties are not authorized to file their
`demonstratives unless instructed by the Board. The parties are reminded
`that the demonstrative exhibits presented in this case are not evidence and
`are intended only to assist the parties in presenting their oral argument to the
`panel.
`Each party shall provide a hard copy of its demonstratives to the court
`reporter at the hearing. At least one judge will be participating remotely via
`a videoconferencing device and will not be able to view the projection
`screen in the hearing room. Consequently, 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 transcript.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the hearing. Lead or backup counsel, however, may present the party’s
`argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the hearing, that party should initiate a joint telephone conference
`with the other party and the panel no later than three business days prior to
`the hearing to discuss the matter.
`Requests for audio-visual equipment are to be made five business
`days in advance of the hearing date. The request is to be sent to
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received timely, the equipment may
`not be available on the day of the hearing.
`It is
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern
`Time on November 15, 2017 in Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01550 (Patent 7,931,239 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01559 (Patent 9,073,532 B2)
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`James M. Glass
`Matthew A. Traupman
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`matthewtraupman@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Charles A. Lemaire
`Jonathan M. Rixen
`LEMAIRE PATENT LAW FIRM
`clemaire@lemairepatent.com
`jrixen@lemairepatent.com
`
`Charles H. De La Garza
`LAW OFFICES OF CHAZ DE LA GARZA
`Chaz@cdlglaw.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