`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INSTRUMENTATION LABORATORY COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HEMOSONICS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,272,280 B2)
` Case IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)1
`
`____________
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues common to both cases; therefore, we issue a
`single Order to be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to use
`this style heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,272,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each request an oral hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. IPR2017-00852, Papers 24, 25; IPR2017-00855, Papers
`26, 27.
`On June 1, 2018, a conference call was held between counsel for both
`parties and Judges Kokoski, Kalan, and Abraham. During the call, the
`parties agreed to have a consolidated hearing for both cases, and that the oral
`hearing will concern only whether Petitioner has satisfied its burden of
`showing that claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,272,280 B2 (the subject of
`IPR2017-00852) and claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No.
`9,410,971 B2 (the subject of IPR2017-00855)2 are unpatentable as
`anticipated by Baugh.3
`Having considered the parties’ submissions, the parties’ requests for
`oral argument are GRANTED.
`Each party will have 30 minutes of total argument time for the
`consolidated hearing. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the
`patent claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner
`will proceed first to present its case with regard to whether Baugh
`anticipates the challenged claims. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to
`Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`
`
`2 Pursuant to the parties’ agreement during the conference call, this oral
`hearing will not concern the claims and grounds addressed in our orders
`dated April 26, 2018, modifying our institution decisions to institute on all
`of the challenged claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petitions.
`IPR2017-00852, Paper 26; IPR2017-00855, Paper 28. If necessary, the
`parties may address those claims and grounds in a supplemental oral
`hearing, presently scheduled for August 14, 2018.
`3 Baugh et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,221,672 B1, issued Apr. 24, 2001
`(“Baugh,” Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,272,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`arguments presented by Patent Owner, but Petitioner may not reserve more
`than half of its allotted time for rebuttal. Patent Owner may not reserve time
`for rebuttal.
`The hearing shall commence at 1:00 pm (EDT) on June 12, 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.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits, if any, must be
`served four business days before the hearing. The parties also shall provide
`the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least two 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,272,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`Board at least two 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.
`At least one member of the panel will be attending the hearing
`electronically from a remote location and may not be able to view the
`projection screen in the hearing room. In particular, documents presented on
`the Elmo projector are not visible to remote judges, so please plan
`accordingly. Each presenter must identify clearly and specifically each
`demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the
`hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript and for
`the benefit of the judge(s) presiding over the hearing remotely. Because of
`limitations of the audio transmission systems in our hearing rooms, the
`presenter may speak only when standing at the hearing room lectern.
`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.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,272,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`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 (EDT) on June 12,
`2018.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,272,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Stephen Y. Chow
`Gabriel Goldman
`Ronda Moore
`Stephen.y.chow@hsuanyeh.com
`ggoldman@burnslev.com
`rmoore@burnslev.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory Carlin
`Andrew Meunier
`Teeporn Tanpitukpongse
`Brian Nolan
`Ying-Zi Yang
`gcarlin@mcciplaw.com
`dmeunier@mcciplaw.com
`ptanpitukpongse@mcciplaw.com
`bnolan@mayerbrown.com
`yyang@mayerbrown.com
`
`