Trials@uspto.gov
`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: August 9, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SHENZHEN KEAN SILICONE PRODUCT CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PKOH NYC, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01327
`Patent 7,959,036 B2
`______________________________
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: August 9, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SHENZHEN KEAN SILICONE PRODUCT CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PKOH NYC, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01327
`Patent 7,959,036 B2
`______________________________
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01327
`Patent 7,959,036 B2
`
`
`
`On December 6, 2017, we instituted an inter partes review proceeding
`as to claims 1–7, 10–14, 20–22, 24, 26, 28–32, and 35–38 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,959,036, on various grounds of unpatentability. See Paper 14, 44–45. On
`April 30, 2018, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in SAS
`Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018), we modified
`our institution decision to include all challenged claims and grounds
`presented in the Petition. Paper 19, 2. On May 23, 2018, the parties jointly
`filed a “Motion to Limit Proceedings” to specific claims and grounds set
`forth in the request. Paper 22. We granted the joint motion. Paper 23.
`August 29, 2018, is the date scheduled for oral argument in this proceeding,
`if requested by a party. Paper 15, 8. Both parties request oral argument for
`this proceeding, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). Papers 26, 27. The
`parties’ requests are granted.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on August 29,
`2018, and will be open to the public for in-person attendance on the ninth
`floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`In-person attendance will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
`basis. We will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the reporter’s
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Patent Owner requested thirty (30) minutes of oral argument time for
`each party. Paper 27, 2. Petitioner did not request a specific amount of time
`for oral argument. See Paper 26. We have reviewed the issues that the
`parties intend to address in this proceeding, and we determine that each party
`should be accorded forty (40) minutes of total argument time.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01327
`Patent 7,959,036 B2
`
`
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the challenged
`claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner, therefore, will open
`the hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims and
`grounds. After Petitioner’s presentation, Patent Owner may respond to
`Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal, out of its
`allotted time, to respond to argument presented by Patent Owner (but no
`more than 15 minutes may be reserved for rebuttal).
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be
`served no later than seven (7) business days before the hearing date. They
`shall be filed with the Board no later than five (5) business days before the
`hearing date. Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, but merely a
`visual aid for use at the hearing. Demonstrative exhibits shall not
`introduce new arguments or evidence. The parties shall meet and confer to
`discuss any objections to demonstrative exhibits at least three (3) business
`days before the hearing. If any issues regarding demonstratives remain
`unresolved after the parties meet and confer, the parties shall file jointly a
`one-page list of objections to the demonstrative exhibits at least two (2)
`business days before the hearing. For each objection, the list must identify
`with particularity the demonstratives subject to the objection and include a
`short, one-sentence statement explaining the objection. We will consider the
`objections and schedule a conference call if necessary. Regardless of
`whether the propriety of any demonstrative exhibit is disputed by either
`party, we consider demonstrative exhibits only to the extent they
`(1) elucidate the parties’ arguments presented during the hearing and
`(2) include only arguments and/or evidence already of record in the
`proceedings. For further guidance on what constitutes an appropriate
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01327
`Patent 7,959,036 B2
`
`demonstrative exhibit, the parties are directed to CBS Interactive Inc. v.
`Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2013-00033 (PTAB Oct. 23,
`2013) (Paper 118).
`We expect lead counsel for each party to be present at the hearing;
`however, any backup counsel may make the actual presentation, in whole or
`in part. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,758
`(Aug. 14, 2012). If lead counsel for either party is unable to attend the
`hearing, the parties shall request a joint telephone conference call no later
`than two (2) business days prior to the hearing date to discuss the matter.
`Requests for special accommodations or audio-visual equipment are
`to be made at least five (5) business days in advance of the hearing date.
`Such requests must be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the requests are not
`received timely, requested accommodations and/or equipment may not be
`available on the day of the hearing.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01327
`Patent 7,959,036 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Xiyan Zhang
`Pete Wolfgram
`xzhang@stratumlaw.com
`pwolfgram@stratumlaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Scott Stimpson
`Tod Melgar
`sstimpson@sillscummis.com
`tmelgar@sillscummis.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
