`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 68
`Entered: July 31, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
`(d/b/a WABTEC CORPORATION),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2),
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2),
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 This Order addresses overlapping issues in the proceedings listed above.
`Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2), IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195
`B2), IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`We instituted an inter partes review for IPR2017-01263 on October
`25, 2017. IPR2017-01263 (“1263 IPR”), Paper 10. We instituted an inter
`partes review for IPR2017-01454 on December 8, 2017. IPR2017-01454
`(“1454 IPR”), Paper 11. Petitioner and Patent Owner requested oral
`argument pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. 1263 IPR, Papers 31, 32; 1454 IPR
`Papers 24, 25. We instituted an inter partes review for IPR2017-00580 on
`July 20, 2017. IPR2017-00580 (“580 IPR”), Paper 12. Oral argument for
`the 580 IPR was held on April 17, 2018. 580 IPR, Paper 54. Subsequent to
`the oral hearing, in view of SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (April
`24, 2018), the one-year period for issuing a Final Written Decision was
`extended and an order was issued setting a supplemental briefing schedule,
`including additional oral argument. 580 IPR, Papers 51–53. Petitioner
`requested additional oral argument pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. 580 IPR,
`Paper 67. Patent Owner did not request additional oral argument for the 580
`IPR.
`
`The parties’ requests are GRANTED. Although the cases captioned
`above are not consolidated, the hearings will be held together and one
`transcript will be provided for all cases. The hearing will commence at 1:00
`PM ET, on August 17, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`For the 1263 IPR, Patent Owner requests 60 minutes of argument for
`each party, and Petitioner requests 45 minutes for each party. 1263 IPR,
`Paper 31, 1, Paper 32, 2. For the 1454 IPR, Patent Owner requests 45
`minutes of argument for each party, and Petitioner request 30 minutes for
`each party. 1454 Paper 24, 1, Paper 25, 2. For the 580 IPR, Petitioner
`requests 15 minutes of argument. 580 IPR, Paper 67, 1. Based on the record
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2), IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195
`B2), IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`before us, we determine each party will have ninety (90) minutes total time
`to present arguments for the 1263 IPR, 1454 IPR, and the 580 IPR.
`Specifically, each party is allotted 45 minutes of argument time for the 1263
`IPR, 30 minutes of argument time for the 1454 IPR, and 15 minutes of
`argument time for the 580 IPR.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at issue in
`these reviews are unpatentable. The panel will first hear argument
`concerning the 1263 IPR. Petitioner will present arguments regarding the
`challenged claims and grounds, and may reserve argument time for use in
`rebuttal after Patent Owner has responded to Petitioner’s initial presentation.
`Thereafter, Patent Owner will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s case,
`having available to it the entirety of its allotted argument time. To the extent
`Petitioner reserves rebuttal time, Petitioner then may make use of that
`rebuttal time responding to Patent Owner. The panel will then turn to the
`1454 IPR, and the arguments for that case will proceed in like fashion.
`Next, Petitioner will present its arguments regarding the post-SAS
`supplemental briefing in the 580 IPR, Patent Owner will respond, and
`Petitioner will have the opportunity to use rebuttal time it reserved.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served
`seven (7) business days before the hearing. The parties also shall file a copy
`of the demonstratives as an exhibit at least three (3) business days prior to
`the hearing. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology
`Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan,
`IPR2013-00041 (PTAB January 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance
`regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2), IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195
`B2), IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`The Board expects the parties will meet and confer in good faith to
`resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If such objections cannot
`be resolved, the parties shall jointly file with the Board a one-page list of the
`objections to demonstrative exhibits at least three (3) business days before
`the hearing. For each objection, the list must identify with particularity the
`demonstratives subject to the objection and include a short, one-sentence
`statement explaining the objection. No argument or further explanation is
`permitted. We will consider the objections and schedule a conference call if
`necessary. Otherwise, we will reserve ruling on the objections. Any
`objection to demonstrative exhibits not presented timely will be considered
`waived.
`Lead counsel for each party is expected to be present in person at the
`oral hearing. Any counsel of record, however, may present the party’s
`arguments. If either party expects that its lead counsel will not be attending
`the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone conference
`with the panel no later than three (3) business days prior to the oral hearing
`to discuss the matter.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance,
`accommodated on a first-come-first-serve basis. A court reporter will be
`provided for the hearing and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the
`official record of the hearing. Each party shall provide a hard copy of their
`demonstratives to the court reporter at the hearing.
`One or more members of the panel hearing this case will attend the
`hearing remotely via a videoconferencing device and, therefore, 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2), IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195
`B2), IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) or page of the
`record referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`reporter’s transcript.
`Any special requests for audio-visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov no later than five (5) business days prior to the oral
`hearing.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the procedures
`outlined above, shall commence at 1:00 PM ET on August 17, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2), IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195
`B2), IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jason A. Engel
`Alan L. Barry
`Roberto Capriotti
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Katherine L. Hoffee
`K&L GATES LLP
`Jason.Engel.PTAB@klgates.com
`alan.barry@klgates.com
`roberto.capriotti@klgates.com
`benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`katy.hoffee.PTAB@klgates.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Mark M. Supko
`Vincent J. Galluzzo
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`jsanok@crowell.com
`msupko@crowell.com
`vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`