Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 49
`
` Entered: August 6, 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 9,727,280 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
`Supplemental 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.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 49
`
` Entered: August 6, 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 9,727,280 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
`Supplemental 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 9,727,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each request a supplemental oral hearing
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. IPR2017-00852, Papers 39, 40; IPR2017-
`00855, Papers 47, 48.
`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. The parties
`also agreed the supplemental oral hearing will involve Ground 2 of the
`Petition in IPR2017-00852 and Grounds 2–14 of the Petition in IPR2017-
`00855.
`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. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond
`to Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`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 August 14, 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,727,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,727,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`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) attending 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.
`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.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,727,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`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 August
`14, 2018.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00852 (Patent 9,727,280 B2)
`IPR2017-00855 (Patent 9,410,971 B2)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Stephen Y. Chow
`Gabriel Goldman
`Ronda Moore
`BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
`stephen.y.chow@burnslev.com
`ggoldman@burnsley.com
`rmoore@burnselv.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian W. Nolan
`Ying-Zi Yang
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`bnolan@mayerbrown.com
`yyang@mayerbrown.com
`
`Gregory J. Carlin
`Andrew T. Meunier
`T. Paul Tanpitukpongse
`MEUNIER CARLIN & CURFMAN LLC
`gcarlin@mcciplaw.com
`dmeunier@mcciplaw.com
`ptanpitukpongse@mcciplaw.com
`
`
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
