`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Date: December 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEN B. BARRETT, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`
`The parties filed requests for oral argument. IPR2017-00058, Papers 13, 14;
`IPR2017-00198, Papers 14, 15. Petitioners request a single consolidated hearing
`for the two proceedings. IPR2017-00058, Paper 13; IPR 2017-00198, Paper 14.
`Patent Owner agrees to consolidation. IPR2017-00058, Paper 14; IPR 2017-
`00198, Paper 15.1 Oral argument as a single consolidated hearing is granted. The
`hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time, on January 18, 2018.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance, on the ninth
`floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Space in
`the hearing room is limited, and any attendees beyond five per party (including any
`attorneys who may be appearing) will be accommodated on a first-come, first-
`served basis.
`For the consolidated proceeding, each party will have thirty (30) minutes of
`total time to present arguments. Petitioner will proceed first, Patent Owner
`thereafter will respond, and Petitioner may rebut if it has time remaining.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearings, and the reporter’s
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearings.
`At least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing, each party shall serve
`on the other party (and not file) any demonstrative it intends to use during the
`hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). The parties should attempt to resolve any
`objections to demonstratives prior to involving the Board. If any objections
`remain, a party may raise them during the hearing as part of its allotted argument
`time. At least one (1) business day prior to the hearing, the parties shall provide
`the demonstratives to the Board by emailing them in portable document format
`
`
`1 Regrettably, the panel does not grant Patent Owner’s request for the oral
`argument to occur in Dallas, Texas, as all panel members work at the Alexandria,
`Virginia site.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`(.pdf) to Trials@uspto.gov. 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
`appropriate content of demonstratives.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at hearing,
`although any backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in whole or in part.
`If any lead counsel will not be in attendance at the hearing, the Board should be
`notified via a joint telephone conference call no later than two days prior to the
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00058 (Patent 7,804,948)
`Case IPR2017-00198 (Patent 7,853,000)
`
`For Petitioner (IPR2017-00058):
`
`Heidi Keefe
`Phillip Morton
`Andrew Mace
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`pmorton@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`
`
`David McCombs (IPR2017-00198)
`Theodore Foster
`Dina Blikshteyn
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboones.com
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboones.com
`dina.blikshteyn.ipr@haynesboones.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`brett.mangrum@unilousa.com
`
`Ryan Loveless
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`