`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
`
`
`
`
`
`