`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 46
`Entered: August 21, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRO LABS LIMITED and
`MICRO LABS USA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SANTEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. and
`ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, CHRISTOPER G. PAULRAJ, and
`DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner request an oral hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 31, 33. The requests are granted.
`Each party will have 60 minutes of total argument time to present its
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the patent
`claims at issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner will
`open the hearing by presenting arguments regarding the pending grounds of
`unpatentability. Patent Owner will then have the opportunity to respond to
`Petitioner’s arguments. If desired, Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time not
`to exceed half the total time allotted. Petitioner is cautioned that rebuttal
`time may only be used to respond to arguments made during Patent Owner’s
`argument.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 pm EDT on September 6, 2018,
`and will be open to the public for in-person attendance on the ninth floor of
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA. In-person
`attendance will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. The
`Board will provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall constitute the
`official record of the hearing.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits, if any, must be
`served seven business days before the hearing. Notwithstanding § 42.70,
`however, the parties shall file the demonstrative exhibits no later than three
`business days before the hearing to allow the panel sufficient time to review
`the materials.
`The Board reminds the parties that demonstrative exhibits are
`intended to assist the parties in presenting their oral arguments and are not
`evidence, and should be clearly marked as such. For example, each slide of
`a demonstrative exhibit may be marked with the words
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`“DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT—NOT EVIDENCE” in the footer. The
`Board also reminds the parties that demonstrative exhibits are not a
`mechanism for making arguments or introducing evidence not previously
`presented in the record. 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), for
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If such objections
`cannot be resolved, the parties may file any remaining objections with the
`Board at least three business days before the oral hearing. Objections to
`demonstratives should be carefully considered and framed as the Board has
`not found that such objections are helpful in many cases. The objections
`should identify with particularity the portions of the demonstrative exhibits
`that are subject to objection and include a one-sentence statement of the
`basis for each objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`The Board will consider any objections and schedule a conference call if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the
`objections. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely
`presented will be considered waived.
`A hard copy of the demonstratives should be provided to the court
`reporter at 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
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`from a remote location, and that if a demonstrative is not filed or otherwise
`made fully available or visible to the judge(s) attending the hearing
`remotely, that demonstrative will not be considered. Documents presented
`on the Elmo projector are not visible to remote judges, so please plan
`accordingly.
`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 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 two business days prior to the oral
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`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 no later than 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent directly to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not
`received timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the
`hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`PETITIONER:
`Cedric C.Y. Tan
`Sean M. Weinman
`H. Keeto Sabharwal
`Yun Wei
`Alton L. Hare
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP
`SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`cedric.tan@pillsburylaw.com
`sean.weinman@pillsburylaw.com
`keeto.sabharwal@pillsburylaw.com
`sophie.wei@pillsburylaw.com
`alton.hare@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Arlene L. Chow
`Ernest Yakob, Ph.D.
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`arlene.chow@hoganlovells.com
`ernest.yakob@hoganlovells.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`