`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 23
`
`
` Entered: June 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MIRA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01052 (Patent 8,848,892 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01411 (Patent 9,531,657 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`Before MINN CHUNG, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01052 (Patent 8,848,892 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01411 (Patent 9,531,657 B2)
`
`
`
`The date set for oral hearing in these proceedings is June 21, 2018, if a
`
`hearing is requested by either party and granted by the Board.
`
`IPR2017-01052, Paper 12; IPR2017-01411, Paper 9. Both parties have
`
`requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. IPR2017-01052,
`
`Papers 20, 22; IPR2017-01411, Papers 26, 28. The requests are GRANTED.
`
`One consolidated hearing will be conducted for both cases. Each party will
`
`have 60 minutes of total argument time. The parties may use their allotted
`
`argument time as they choose, provided that the order of arguments
`
`presented will be as follows.
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) bears the ultimate burden of
`
`proof that the claims at issue in these reviews are unpatentable. Therefore,
`
`at oral hearing Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with regard to
`
`the challenged claims and grounds on which we instituted trial. Mira
`
`Advanced Technology Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) then will argue its
`
`opposition to Petitioner’s case. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time.
`
`There is a strong public policy interest in making all information
`
`presented in these proceedings public, as each review determines the
`
`patentability of claims in an issued patent and thus affects the rights of the
`
`public. This policy is reflected in part, for example, in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1)
`
`and 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1), which provide that the file of any inter partes
`
`review or post grant review be made available to the public, except that any
`
`petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed shall, if
`
`accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending the outcome
`
`of the ruling on the motion. Accordingly, the Board exercises its discretion
`
`to make the oral hearing publically available via in-person attendance.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01052 (Patent 8,848,892 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01411 (Patent 9,531,657 B2)
`
`
`
`Specifically, the hearing will commence at 1:30 PM Eastern Time on
`
`June 21, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing will be open to the public for in-
`
`person attendance that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
`
`basis. If the parties have any concern about disclosing confidential
`
`information, they are to contact the Board by June 15, 2018 to discuss the
`
`matter.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. Any
`
`demonstrative exhibits must be served on or before June 15, 2018.
`
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and may not introduce new
`
`evidence or arguments. Instead, demonstrative exhibits should cite to
`
`evidence in the record. Demonstratives shall not become part of the
`
`evidentiary record of these proceedings. 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), and CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, Case
`
`IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118), regarding the
`
`appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`The parties should attempt to resolve any objections to demonstratives
`
`prior to involving the Board. The parties must file any unresolved
`
`objections to the demonstratives with the Board by June 19, 2018. Any
`
`objection to the demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will be
`
`considered waived. The objections should identify with particularity which
`
`demonstratives are subject to objection, and include a short (one sentence or
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01052 (Patent 8,848,892 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01411 (Patent 9,531,657 B2)
`
`
`less) statement of the reason for each objection. The Board will consider the
`
`objections and schedule a conference if necessary, or the Board may reserve
`
`ruling until after the oral argument.
`
`The parties shall also provide the demonstratives to the Board at
`
`trials@uspto.gov by June 19, 2018. To aid in the preparation of an accurate
`
`transcript, each party shall provide paper copies of its demonstratives to the
`
`court reporter on the day of the oral argument. Such paper copies shall not
`
`become part of the evidentiary record of these proceedings.
`
`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 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received
`
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`
`The parties are reminded that the 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. The parties also should note that at least one member
`
`of the panel will be attending the hearing electronically from a remote
`
`location and that if a demonstrative is not filed or otherwise made fully
`
`available or visible to the judge participating remotely, that demonstrative
`
`will not be considered. If the parties have questions as to whether
`
`demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible and available to all of
`
`the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board at 571-272-9797.
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`
`at the oral hearing. However, lead or backup counsel may present the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01052 (Patent 8,848,892 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01411 (Patent 9,531,657 B2)
`
`
`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 three business days prior to the oral
`
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`
`
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 1:30 PM ET, on
`
`Thursday, June 21, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01052 (Patent 8,848,892 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01411 (Patent 9,531,657 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Andrew Mason
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`John Vandenberg
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`J. Christopher Carraway
`chris.carraway@klarquist.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jundong Ma
`jma@jdmpatentlaw.com
`
`Joseph Zito
`jzito@dnlzito.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`