`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: July 20, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`The date set for oral argument in this proceeding is August 7, 2018, if
`requested by either party and granted by the Board. Paper 10. Petitioner
`requests oral argument. Paper 14. The request for oral argument is granted
`as provided below.
`Each side will have thirty (30) minutes, total, to present its argument
`in the case, under the following procedures. Petitioner bears the ultimate
`burden of proof that Patent Owner’s claims at issue in this review are
`unpatentable and shall open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the
`challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial. This includes both
`the grounds instituted in the original Institution Decision (Paper 9), as well
`as the additional grounds instituted in our Order Modifying Institution
`(Paper 15) in light of SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).
`Patent Owner did not provide a Patent Owner Response to our
`original Institution Decision. Accordingly, Patent Owner has waived the
`opportunity to present arguments during the oral argument in response to the
`Petition with respect to the grounds instituted in the original Institution
`Decision. With regard to the grounds instituted in our Order Modifying
`Institution, we permitted Patent Owner to adopt its arguments from its
`Preliminary Patent Owner Response only with respect to those newly
`instituted grounds. Paper 16. Accordingly, Patent Owner may, if it chooses,
`present arguments during the oral argument in response to the Petition with
`respect to the grounds instituted in our Order Modifying Institution.
`Finally, Petitioner may use any time it has reserved for rebuttal to
`respond only to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the grounds instituted
`in our Order Modifying Institution.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`The hearing will commence at 1:30 PM on August 7, 2018, on the
`ninth floor of the Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia. 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. If the parties have any
`concern about disclosing confidential information, they are requested to
`contact the Board at least seven days in advance of the hearing to discuss the
`matter.
`The parties are reminded that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(7), a
`proponent of deposition testimony must file such testimony as an exhibit.
`The Board will not consider any deposition testimony that has not been so
`filed.
`
`Furthermore, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must
`be served at least seven business days before the hearing date and filed no
`later than the time of the oral argument. The parties also shall provide a
`courtesy copy of any demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least five
`business days prior to the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`The parties must file any objections to the demonstrative exhibits 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
`demonstrative exhibits 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`reserve ruling on the objections until after the oral argument. The parties are
`directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Board of Regents
`of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2015)
`(Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`exhibits. The parties are reminded that the demonstrative exhibits presented
`in this case are not evidence and are intended only to assist the parties in
`presenting their oral argument to the panel.
`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 expects 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.
`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 not less than five days before
`the hearing directed to the above email address.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01281
`Patent 7,828,767 B2
`PETITIONER:
`
`James Isbester
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jisbester@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Craig Summers
`Cheryl Burgess
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2css@knobbe.com
`2ctb@knobbe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wallace Wu
`Jennifer Sklenar
`Nicholas Nyemah
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`jennifer.sklenar@apks.com
`nicholas.nyemah@aporter.com
`
`5
`
`