Paper No. 27
`Entered: April 6, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INFOBIONIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00796
`Patent RE43,767 E
`____________
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`Entered: April 6, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INFOBIONIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00796
`Patent RE43,767 E
`____________
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00796
`Patent RE43,767 E
`
`
`
`
`
`As set forth in the Scheduling Order, oral argument, if requested, is
`scheduled for May 1, 2018, in connection with this proceeding. Paper 12, 6.
`Patent Owner and Petitioner each requests oral argument. Paper 23; Paper 26. The
`requests are granted.
`
`Oral argument will commence at 2:00 PM ET on May 1, 2018. The hearing
`will be conducted on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person
`attendance, which will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. The
`Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s transcript
`will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`
`Each party will have forty five (45) minutes of total argument time. At oral
`hearing, Petitioner will open the hearing by presenting its arguments. Thereafter,
`Patent Owner may argue its opposition to Petitioner’s arguments and argue its
`motion to exclude (Paper 25). Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal arguments
`and may present arguments in opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.
`Patent Owner may reserve rebuttal time only to reply to Petitioner’s opposition to
`Patent Owner’s motion to exclude. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof
`that the claims at issue in this review are unpatentable.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at least
`five business days before the hearing and filed no later than the time of the hearing.
`The Board requests that such exhibits be filed at the Board at least five business
`days before the hearing to facilitate the panel’s preparation. The parties are
`directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of
`the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041, Paper 65 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014), for
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00796
`Patent RE43,767 E
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties should strive to resolve any disagreement regarding
`demonstratives before involving the Board. If, however, the parties are unable to
`resolve their disagreement, either party may submit an objection to the
`demonstratives with the Board if filed at least two business days before the
`hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented will
`be considered waived. The objections should identify with particularity which
`demonstratives are subject to objection, and include a short (one sentence or less)
`statement of the reason for each objection. No argument or further explanation is
`permitted. The Board will consider the objections and schedule a conference if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the objections until
`after the oral argument.
`At least one member of the panel hearing this case will attend the hearing
`remotely, by video and audio link. The parties are reminded that, during the
`hearing, the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative
`exhibit referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number) to ensure the clarity and
`accuracy of the reporter’s transcript, and to ensure that the remote judge can follow
`the argument even if the video connection is disrupted. The parties are requested
`to speak directly into the microphone, including during initial introduction of
`counsel.
`We understand that Petitioner’s lead counsel will not attend the hearing and
`that its back-up counsel will present its arguments. Paper 23, 1. If Patent Owner
`anticipates that its lead counsel will not attend the hearing, the parties should notify
`the Board no later than two business days prior to the hearing. Any counsel of
`record may present a party’s argument. Either party’s argument may be divided,
`but interruptions for change of counsel should be kept to a minimum.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00796
`Patent RE43,767 E
`
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner requests that its counsel be allowed to use computers
`and that certain audio-visual equipment be provided. Id. The parties are allowed
`to use computers, but requests for special equipment will not be honored unless
`presented in a separate communication directed to Trials@uspto.gov not less than
`five days before the hearing. If the request is not received timely, the equipment
`may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that oral argument for this proceeding shall take place beginning
`at 2:00 pm Eastern Time on May 1, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building
`East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00796
`Patent RE43,767 E
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Charles Sanders
`Jonathan Strang
`Kristopher Davis
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Charles.sanders@lw.com
`Jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Kris.davis@lw.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`Bradford Badke
`Thomas Broughan
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`clfukuda@sidley.com
`jbadke@sidley.com
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`5
`
`
`
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
