throbber
Paper 24
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MINIATURE PRECISION COMPONENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EAGLE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`
`
`As set forth in the Scheduling Order (Paper 9), as modified by the
`May 16, 2018 Order (Paper 16), oral argument, if requested, is scheduled for
`September 7, 2018. Patent Owner requested oral argument in connection
`with this proceeding. Paper 23. Patent Owner requested “1 hour of total
`argument time, with 30 minutes allocated to the Petitioenr and 30 minutes
`allocated to the Patent Owner.” Id. at 1. Petitioner did not oppose Patent
`Owner’s request, or file its own request for oral argument, which was due on
`July 30, 2018. See Papers 9, 16. Patent Owner’s request is granted.
`Oral argument will commence at 10:00 AM ET on September 7,
`2018. The hearing will be conducted on the ninth floor of Madison Building
`East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The hearing will be
`open to the public for in-person attendance, which will be accommodated on
`a first-come, first-served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter for
`the hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of
`the hearing.
`Each party will have thirty (30) minutes of total argument time, for a
`total of 60 minutes of argument. 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 on which basis we instituted trial in each proceeding.
`Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time. Thereafter, Patent Owner will argue its
`opposition to Petitioner’s case. Lastly, Petitioner may use any reserved time
`for rebuttal.
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`
`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.
`At least one member of the panel may be attending the hearing
`electronically from a remote location and will not be able to view the
`projection screen in the hearing room. Thus, if a demonstrative exhibit is
`not made available in advance or visible to the judge(s) presiding over the
`hearing remotely, that demonstrative exhibit will not be helpful. 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 any
`judge(s) presiding over the hearing remotely. A hard copy of the
`demonstratives, if filed, should be provided to the court reporter at the
`hearing. In addition, the parties are reminded that, at the oral argument, they
`“may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the
`proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers
`previously submitted.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). “No new evidence or arguments may be
`presented at the oral argument.” Id.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven business days prior to the hearing. The parties are further
`directed to file demonstrative exhibits three business days prior to the
`hearing, and request a conference call with the Board prior to the hearing to
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`
`resolve any dispute over the propriety of each party’s demonstrative
`exhibits. The parties are responsible for requesting such a conference
`sufficiently in advance of the hearing to accommodate this requirement.
`Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not presented timely will be
`considered waived. The parties may refer to CBS Interactive Inc. v.
`Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033 (PTAB October 23, 2013)
`(Paper 118), and St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board of
`Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27,
`2014) (Paper 65) regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`exhibits.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`at the oral hearing. Lead or backup counsel, however, may present the
`party’s argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`attending the oral argument, the parties should request a joint telephone
`conference with the Board no later than two business days prior to the oral
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`It is
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 10:00 A.M. ET on
`September 7, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01403
`Patent 8,205,592 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John S. Artz
`Bryan J. Schomer
`DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
`jsartz@dickinsonwright.com
`bschomer@dickinsonwright.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jacob D. Koering
`CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE
`koering@millercanfield.com
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket