Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 79
`Entered: September 19, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`COASTAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SHOWER ENCLOSURES AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00573
`Patent 7,174,944
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Supplemental Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00573
`Patent 7,174,944
`
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner each request a supplemental oral hearing
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 72, 73. Petitioner requests that the
`
`supplemental oral hearing be held in-person. Paper 72, 1. The requests are
`
`granted. As this is a supplemental oral hearing, it will be limited to claims,
`
`grounds, and issues to which the parties did not have an opportunity to present at
`
`the previous oral hearing held on March 28, 2018. In general, that is limited to
`
`(1) the challenged claims and grounds on which the Board instituted trial on
`
`April 30, 2018 (Paper 44), and (2) issues concerning Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend.
`
`The supplemental oral hearing shall commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on
`
`October 3, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`
`Alexandria, Virginia. The supplemental oral hearing will be open to the public for
`
`in-person attendance that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the supplemental oral hearing, and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the supplemental oral
`
`hearing.
`
`Petitioner requests thirty (30) minutes per side for oral argument. Paper 72,
`
`1. Patent Owner does not request a specific time period. See generally Paper 73.
`
`Petitioner’s request is granted. Each party will have thirty (30) minutes of total
`
`time to present arguments. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and persuasion,
`
`except for certain motions brought by Patent Owner. Accordingly, Petitioner will
`
`proceed first to present its case. Thereafter, Patent Owner may respond to
`
`Petitioner’s case. Thereafter, Petitioner may use any of its remaining time for
`
`rebuttal.
`
`At least five (5) business days prior to the supplemental oral hearing, each
`
`party shall serve on the other party any demonstrative exhibit(s) it intends to use
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00573
`Patent 7,174,944
`
`during the supplemental oral hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). At least two (2)
`
`business days prior to the supplemental oral hearing, the parties shall provide the
`
`demonstrative exhibits to the Board by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov. As the
`
`demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, the parties shall not file any demonstrative
`
`exhibits in this case, at least without prior authorization from the Board.
`
`The parties should attempt to work out any objections to demonstratives
`
`prior to involving the Board. Should either party disagree with the propriety of any
`
`of the opposing party’s demonstratives, the party may send, contemporaneously
`
`with its own slides two (2) business days prior to the supplemental oral hearing, an
`
`email to Trials@uspto.gov including a paper limited to identifying the opposing
`
`party’s slide(s) objected to. No further argument is permitted in that paper. The
`
`Board will then take the objections under advisement, and if the content is
`
`inappropriate, it will not be considered. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits
`
`that is not timely presented will be considered waived.
`
`The Board asks the parties to confine demonstrative exhibit objections to
`
`those identifying egregious violations that are prejudicial to the administration of
`
`justice. 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. In general, if the content on a slide cannot be readily
`
`associated with an argument made, or evidence referenced, in a substantive paper,
`
`it is inappropriate. Conversely, if the content on a slide can be readily associated
`
`with an argument made, or evidence referenced, in a substantive paper, it is proper.
`
`The best practice is to indicate on each slide where support may be found in a
`
`substantive paper and/or an exhibit of record in this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00573
`Patent 7,174,944
`
`
`The parties are reminded that each presenter must identify clearly and
`
`specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced
`
`during the supplemental oral hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`
`reporter’s transcript. The parties also should note that at least one member of the
`
`panel may be attending the supplemental oral hearing electronically from a remote
`
`location, and that if a demonstrative is not filed or otherwise made fully available
`
`or visible to all judges at the supplemental oral hearing, that demonstrative will not
`
`be considered. If the parties have questions as to whether demonstrative exhibits
`
`would be sufficiently visible and available to all of the judges, the parties are
`
`invited to contact the Board at (571) 272-9797.
`
`The parties also are reminded that, at the supplemental oral hearing, they
`
`may only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding,
`
`and is properly of record at the time of the supplemental oral hearing, and may
`
`only present arguments that have been previously made in the appropriate
`
`submitted substantive papers, which, here, are generally limited to those filed after
`
`April 30, 2018, and that are properly of record at the time of the supplemental oral
`
`hearing. The parties may also refer to anything relevant to those papers in the
`
`Decisions on Institution (Papers 9, 44).
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person at the
`
`hearing. If a 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. Any
`
`counsel of record, however, may present the party’s arguments.
`
`Requests for audio-visual equipment are to be made at least five business
`
`days in advance of the date of the hearing by sending the request to
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00573
`Patent 7,174,944
`
`Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received timely, the equipment may not be
`
`available on the day of the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00573
`Patent 7,174,944
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Kincart
`jkincart@rtlaw.com
`
`Andres Arrubla
`aarrubla@coastalind.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Fountain
`ryanfountain@aol.com
`
`John O’Banion
`docketing@intellectual.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`