Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 34
`
` Entered: May 4, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00809
`Patent 6,703,106 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 34
`
` Entered: May 4, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00809
`Patent 6,703,106 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00809
`Patent 6,703,106 B2
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each request an oral hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 31, 32. Petitioner requests 60 minutes of total
`argument time. Paper 32, 1. Patent Owner did not request a specific amount
`of argument time. Paper 31. Having considered the parties’ submissions,
`the parties’ request for oral argument is GRANTED.
`Each party will have 60 minutes of total argument time. Patent
`Owner will proceed first to present its case with regard to whether its Motion
`to Amend meets the requirements set forth under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Patent
`Owner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to arguments presented by
`Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner may respond to Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding the requirements for a motion to amend under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121,
`and present its arguments regarding the patentability of new claims 7–12.
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to arguments presented by
`Patent Owner regarding the patentability of claims 7–12. Patent Owner may
`then present any rebuttal arguments regarding the requirements for a motion
`to amend under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 and may respond to Petitioner’s
`arguments regarding the patentability of claims 7–12. Finally, Petitioner
`may present any rebuttal arguments regarding the patentability of claims 7–
`12.
`
`The hearing shall commence at 1:00 pm (EST) on May 17, 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. Seating will
`be available on a first-come, first-served basis. The Board will provide a
`court reporter, and the transcript shall constitute the official record of the
`hearing.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00809
`Patent 6,703,106 B2
`
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00809
`Patent 6,703,106 B2
`
`
`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 May 17,
`2018.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00809
`Patent 6,703,106 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Michael Rader
`mrader-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`Randy Pritzker
`rpritzker-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`Richard Giunta
`rgiunta-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`Michael Pomianek, Ph.D.
`mpomianek-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`Elisabeth Hunt
`ehunt-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Eliot Williams
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`Robert Scheinfeld
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`Robert Maier
`robert.maier@bakerbotts.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
