`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 56
`Entered: December 14, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`QUALICAPS CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each request an oral hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 54, 55. Patent Owner requests 45 minutes of total
`argument time. Paper 54, 2. Petitioner did not request a specific amount of
`argument time. Paper 55. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the
`parties’ request for oral argument is GRANTED.
`Each party will have 35 minutes of total argument time. Petitioner
`bears the ultimate burden of proof that the patent claims at issue in this
`review are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner will proceed first to present
`its case with regard to the challenged claims on which basis we instituted
`trial. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s arguments.
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to arguments presented by
`Patent Owner. Patent Owner may not reserve time for rebuttal.
`The hearing shall commence at 1:00 pm (EST) on January 25, 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, VA. The
`Board will provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall constitute the
`official record of the hearing.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits, if any, must be
`served seven business days before the hearing. The parties also shall
`provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least three business days
`prior to the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov. The parties shall
`not file any demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding without prior
`authorization from the Board.
`The Board reminds the parties that demonstrative exhibits are not
`evidence, but are intended to assist the parties in presenting their oral
`arguments to the Board. The Board also reminds the parties that
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`demonstrative exhibits are not a mechanism for making arguments not
`previously addressed in the papers. 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.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If such objections
`cannot be resolved, the parties may file any remaining objections with the
`Board at least three business days before the oral hearing. The objections
`should identify with particularity the portions of the demonstrative exhibits
`that are subject to objection and include a one-sentence statement of the
`basis for each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`The Board will consider any objections and schedule a conference call if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the
`objections until the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is
`not timely presented will be considered waived. A hard copy of the
`demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at the hearing.
`At least one member of the panel will be attending the hearing
`electronically from a remote location and may not be able to view the
`projection screen in the hearing room. In particular, documents presented on
`the Elmo projector are not visible to remote judges, so please plan
`accordingly. If a demonstrative exhibit is not made available or visible to
`the judge(s) presiding over the hearing remotely, that demonstrative will not
`be considered. Each 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 reporter’s transcript and for
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`the benefit of the judge(s) presiding over the hearing remotely. Because of
`limitations of the audio transmission systems in our hearing rooms, the
`presenter may speak only when standing at the hearing room lectern.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s
`argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone
`conference with the Board no later than two business days prior to the oral
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at 571-272-9797. Requests for audio-visual equipment
`are to be made no later than 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent directly to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not
`received timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the
`hearing.
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is:
`ORDERED that the oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the
`procedures outlined above, shall commence at 1:00 PM (EST) on January
`25, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Mitchell Stockwell
`Clay Holloway
`Miranda Rogers
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mrogers@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jessica Parezo
`Andrea Reister
`Scott Kamholz
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`jparezo@cov.com
`areister@cov.com
`skamholz@cov.com
`
`Maryanne Armstrong
`Lynde Herzbach
`BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
`maa@bskb.com
`lynde.herzbach@bskb.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`