Paper 37
`Entered: August 22, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-015371 (Patent 7,154,200)
`Case IPR2017-015382 (Patent 7,928,348)
`Case IPR2017-015393 (Patent 7,683,509)
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 Case IPR2018-00442 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case IPR2018-00443 has been joined with this proceeding.
`3 Case IPR2018-00444 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`Entered: August 22, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-015371 (Patent 7,154,200)
`Case IPR2017-015382 (Patent 7,928,348)
`Case IPR2017-015393 (Patent 7,683,509)
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(10) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 Case IPR2018-00442 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case IPR2018-00443 has been joined with this proceeding.
`3 Case IPR2018-00444 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01537 (Patent 7,154,200)
`IPR2017-01538 (Patent 7,928,348)
`IPR2017-01539 (Patent 7,683,509)
`
`
`In IPR2017-01537 (“the –1537 IPR”), we instituted an inter partes
`review proceeding as to challenged claims 1, 2, and 4–7 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,154,200 (“the ’200 patent”). –1537 IPR, Papers 10, 18.
`In IPR2017-01538 (“the –1538 IPR”), we instituted an inter partes
`review proceeding as to challenged claims 24–27 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,928,348 (“the ’348 patent”). –1538 IPR, Papers 11, 21.
`In IPR2017-01539 (“the –1539 IPR”), we instituted an inter partes
`review proceeding as to challenged claims 1–3, 7, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,683,509 (“the ’509 patent”). –1539 IPR, Papers 10, 20.
`The Scheduling Orders for these proceedings provided that an oral
`hearing would be conducted if requested by the parties and granted by the
`Board. –1537 IPR, Papers 11, 19, 21; –1538 IPR, Papers 12, 22, 24; –1539
`IPR, Papers 11, 21, 23. Both sides requested oral argument for these
`proceedings, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). –1537 IPR, Papers 30, 31;
`–1538 IPR, Papers 33, 34; –1539 IPR, Papers 33, 34. The parties’ requests
`are granted.
`Relevant to the oral argument for these proceedings, IPR2017-01494
`(“the –1494 IPR”) also concerns the ’509 patent, and IPR2017-01495 (“the
`–1495 IPR”) also concerns the ’348 patent. The petitioner entity in those
`proceedings is Toyota Motor Corp. and Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. (not including
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc.). The oral argument scheduled pursuant to
`this Order will also address the –1494 and –1495 IPR proceedings.
`A similar Hearing Order is being entered in those proceedings.
`A combined hearing will commence at 9:00 AM Eastern Time on
`September 18, 2018, and will be open to the public for in-person attendance
`on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01537 (Patent 7,154,200)
`IPR2017-01538 (Patent 7,928,348)
`IPR2017-01539 (Patent 7,683,509)
`
`Virginia. In-person attendance will be accommodated on a first-come, first-
`served basis.4 We will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`Patent Owner does not request a specific amount of oral argument
`time. –1537 IPR, Paper 30; –1538 IPR, Paper 33; –1539 IPR, Papers 33.
`Petitioner requests 30 minutes of combined oral argument time for the
`–1494 IPR and –1539 IPR, which concern the ’509 patent. –1537 IPR,
`Paper 31, 2; –1538 IPR, Paper 34, 2; –1539 IPR, Papers 34, 2. Petitioner
`also requests 30 minutes of combined oral argument time for the –1495 IPR
`and –1538 IPR, which concern the ’348 patent. Id. Finally, Petitioner
`requests 30 minutes of oral argument time for the –1537 IPR, which
`concerns the ’200 patent. Id.
`We have reviewed the issues that the parties intend to address in these
`proceedings and, consistent with Petitioner’s request, we determine that each
`party should be afforded a total of 30 minutes of total argument time per
`patent. In other words, Petitioner will have a total of 30 minutes to address
`the –1494 and –1539 IPR proceedings related to the ’509 patent; a total of
`30 minutes to address the –1495 and –1538 IPR proceedings related to the
`’348 patent; and a total of 30 minutes to address the –1537 IPR proceeding
`related to the ’200 patent. Patent Owner will have the same allocation of
`time. This affords three hours of total argument time (1.5 hours per side) to
`address the three patents.
`
`
`4 Petitioner requests that space be reserved for twenty attendees. See, e.g.,
`–1537 IPR, Paper 31, 2. At this time, the oral argument is scheduled to be
`conducted in Hearing Room A, which is the largest room available.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01537 (Patent 7,154,200)
`IPR2017-01538 (Patent 7,928,348)
`IPR2017-01539 (Patent 7,683,509)
`
`
`The panel anticipates, but does not guarantee, that we will first hear
`argument on the ’509 patent, followed by argument on the ’348 patent, then
`followed by argument on the ’200 patent.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the challenged
`claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Therefore, for each patent
`addressed during the hearing, Petitioner will present its case regarding the
`challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial. 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. Patent Owner may also reserve time for sur-
`rebuttal, out of its allotted time. We will use this process for argument on
`each patent.
`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
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01537 (Patent 7,154,200)
`IPR2017-01538 (Patent 7,928,348)
`IPR2017-01539 (Patent 7,683,509)
`
`whether the propriety of any demonstrative exhibit is disputed by either
`party, we consider demonstrative exhibits only to the extent (1) they
`elucidate the parties’ arguments presented during the hearing and (2) they
`include only arguments and/or evidence already of record in the
`proceedings. For further guidance on what constitutes an appropriate
`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 take this opportunity to remind the parties that 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.
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01537 (Patent 7,154,200)
`IPR2017-01538 (Patent 7,928,348)
`IPR2017-01539 (Patent 7,683,509)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert C. Mattson
`John S. Kern
`Lisa Mandrusiak
`OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`cpdocketkern@oblon.com
`cpdocketmandrusiak@oblon.com
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Thomas W. Winland
`James R. Barney
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`thomas.winland@finnegan.com
`james.barney@finnegan.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. King
`Ted M. Cannon
`Bridget Smith
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2jrk@knobbe.com
`2tmc@knobbe.com
`2bzs@knobbe.com
`
`
`Tim R. Seeley
`James R. Hietala
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`tim@intven.com
`jhietala@intven.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
