`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Entered: June 26, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`C&D ZODIAC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B/E AEROSPACE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01275 (Patent 9,073,641 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01276 (Patent 9,440,742 B2)
`Case PGR2017-00019 (Patent D764,031 S)1
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Request for Oral Argument and Amended Scheduling Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.70
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the captioned proceedings and will be entered
`into the record of each case.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01275 (Patent 9,073,641 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01276 (Patent 9,440,742 B2)
`Case PGR2017-00019 (Patent D764,031 S)
`
`
`AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
`NEW DUE DATE 7
`Further to our initial Scheduling Order, mailed October 31, 2017,
`(Paper 13), and the parties Request for Oral Argument in each of the above
`noted proceedings, this Order changes the oral argument date, Due Date 7,
`previously, July 26, 2018, to the new date and time of, August 3, 2018,
`1:00pm Eastern Time, in Alexandria, Virginia. No other changes to the
`Scheduling Order have been made.
`
`NEW DUE DATE 7 ...............................................................August 3, 2018
`
`The original, and now amended, Scheduling Order for these cases sets
`the date for oral hearing as August 3, 2018, if a hearing is requested by the
`parties and granted by the panel. See e.g., IPR2017-01275, Paper 13. Both
`parties have requested oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. See, id.
`Papers 29, 31. The requests are granted.
`Oral arguments will commence at 1:00 pm Eastern Time on August 3,
`2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia. Each party will have 90 minutes total time to present
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent
`Owner’s claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore,
`Petitioner will open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the
`challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial. After Petitioner’s
`presentation, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01275 (Patent 9,073,641 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01276 (Patent 9,440,742 B2)
`Case PGR2017-00019 (Patent D764,031 S)
`
`may reserve rebuttal time to respond to arguments presented by Patent
`Owner.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. The
`hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that will be
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall serve any demonstrative
`exhibits upon each other at least five business days prior to the hearing. The
`parties also shall provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least five
`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 parties must file any objections to the demonstratives with the
`Board 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. The parties are
`directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of
`Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27,
`2014) (Paper 65) and CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing,
`LLC, IPR2013-00033, (PTAB Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118), for guidance
`regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01275 (Patent 9,073,641 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01276 (Patent 9,440,742 B2)
`Case PGR2017-00019 (Patent D764,031 S)
`
`
`We expect 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 expects that its lead counsel will not be attending
`the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone conference
`with the panel no later than two business days prior to the oral hearing to
`discuss the matter.
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be honored
`unless presented in a separate communication directed to the above email
`address not less than five days before the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01275 (Patent 9,073,641 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01276 (Patent 9,440,742 B2)
`Case PGR2017-00019 (Patent D764,031 S)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John Alemanni
`Dean Russell
`David Reed
`Andrew Rinehart
`Michael Morlock
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`drussell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`dreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael R. Fleming
`Talin Gordnia
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`mfleming@irell.com
`tgordnia@irell.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
