Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32
`571-272-7822
`Date: March 13, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIVEPERSON, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`24/7 CUSTOMER, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00610
`Patent 9,077,804 B2
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK,
`and JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`Petitioner LivePerson, Inc. and Patent Owner 24/7 Customer, Inc.
`jointly requested oral argument in this inter partes review trial pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Paper 31. Specifically, each party requests 30 minutes of
`argument time to address various issues pertaining to the patentability of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,077,804. Id. Upon consideration, the requests are
`
`
`571-272-7822
`Date: March 13, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIVEPERSON, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`24/7 CUSTOMER, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00610
`Patent 9,077,804 B2
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK,
`and JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`Petitioner LivePerson, Inc. and Patent Owner 24/7 Customer, Inc.
`jointly requested oral argument in this inter partes review trial pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Paper 31. Specifically, each party requests 30 minutes of
`argument time to address various issues pertaining to the patentability of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,077,804. Id. Upon consideration, the requests are
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00610
`Patent 9,077,804 B2
`
`
`granted. Oral argument shall commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on April
`10, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`LivePerson, as Petitioner, bears the ultimate burden of proof that the
`claims at issue in the inter partes review are unpatentable. Therefore,
`LivePerson will open the hearing by presenting argument regarding the
`pending grounds of unpatentability. 24/7 Customer will then have the
`opportunity to respond to LivePerson’s arguments. If desired, LivePerson
`may reserve rebuttal time not to exceed half the total time allotted.
`LivePerson is cautioned that rebuttal time may only be used to respond to
`arguments made during 24/7 Customer’s argument.
`The Board will provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall
`constitute the official record of the hearing. No Motions to Seal have been
`filed in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the parties
`are capable of presenting their arguments without discussing confidential
`information, and exercises its discretion to make the oral hearing publicly
`accessible. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance
`that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`Demonstrative exhibits shall be served on opposing counsel at least
`five business days before the hearing, and filed with the Board no later than
`two business days before the hearing. All pages of demonstrative exhibits
`should be clearly marked with the legend “DEMONSTRATIVE
`EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE.” 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00610
`Patent 9,077,804 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections
`cannot be resolved the parties may file any objections to demonstratives with
`the Board at least two business days before the hearing. The objections
`should identify with particularity which portions of the demonstrative
`exhibits 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. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely
`presented will be considered waived.
`A member of the panel may attend oral argument remotely by use of
`two-way audio-visual communication equipment. The parties are reminded
`that counsel must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative
`exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to
`assist any remote judges in following the presentation, and to ensure the
`clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. Any counsel of record, however, may present the party’s
`argument. If any 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 special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be honored
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00610
`Patent 9,077,804 B2
`
`
`unless presented in a separate communication not less than five days before
`the hearing directed to the above email address.
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that oral hearing, conducted
`pursuant to the procedures outlined above, shall commence at 1:00 PM
`Eastern Time on April 10, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert Kang
`Kristen Reichenbach
`Eugene Goryunov
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`robert.kang@kirkland.com
`kristen.reichenbach@kirkland.com
`egorynov@kirkland.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Mark E. Miller
`Brian M. Cook
`Jay Choi
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`markmiller@omm.com
`bcook@omm.com
`jchoi@omm.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
