`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 58
`Entered: August 31, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B. BRAUN MELSUNGEN AG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01588 (Patent 8,460,247)
`Case IPR2017-01589 (Patent 8,597,249)
`Case IPR2017-01590 (Patent 9,370,641)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We issue one Order and enter it in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01588 (Patent 8,460,247)
`IPR2017-01589 (Patent 8,597,249)
`IPR2017-01590 (Patent 9,370,641)
`
`
`As set forth in a Board order, oral argument, if requested, is scheduled
`for September 21, 2018, in connection with these proceedings. Paper 27, 2.2
`Patent Owner and Petitioner jointly request oral argument. Paper 58
`(“Request”). The Request is granted.
`Oral argument will commence at 1:00 PM ET on September 21, 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 one hundred minutes of total argument time. At
`oral hearing, Petitioner will open the hearing by presenting its arguments,
`including arguments for any of its motions. Thereafter, Patent Owner may
`argue its opposition to Petitioner’s arguments and any of its motions.
`Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal arguments and may present
`arguments in opposition to Patent Owner’s motion(s), if argued by Patent
`Owner. Patent Owner may reserve rebuttal time only to reply to Petitioner’s
`opposition to Patent Owner’s motion(s). Petitioner bears the ultimate burden
`of proof that the claims at issue in this review are unpatentable.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least five business days before the hearing and filed no later than the time of
`the hearing. The Board requests that such exhibits be filed at the Board at
`
`
`2 Our citations to the record will be to IPR2017-01588 unless otherwise
`indicated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01588 (Patent 8,460,247)
`IPR2017-01589 (Patent 8,597,249)
`IPR2017-01590 (Patent 9,370,641)
`
`least five business days before the hearing to facilitate the panel’s
`preparation. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology
`Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan,
`IPR2013-00041, Paper 65 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014), for guidance regarding the
`appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`The parties should strive to resolve any disagreement regarding
`demonstratives before involving the Board. If, however, the parties are
`unable to resolve their disagreement, either party may submit an objection to
`the demonstratives with the Board if filed 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 demonstratives 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 reserve ruling on the objections until after the oral argument.
`At least one member of the panel hearing this case will attend the
`hearing remotely, by video and audio link. The parties are reminded that,
`during the hearing, the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each
`demonstrative exhibit referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number) to ensure
`the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript, and to ensure that the
`remote judge can follow the argument even if the video connection is
`disrupted. The parties are requested to speak directly into the microphone,
`including during initial introduction of counsel.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01588 (Patent 8,460,247)
`IPR2017-01589 (Patent 8,597,249)
`IPR2017-01590 (Patent 9,370,641)
`
`
`If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not attend the
`hearing, the parties should notify the Board no later than two business days
`prior to the hearing. Any counsel of record may present a party’s argument.
`Either party’s argument may be divided, but interruptions for change of
`counsel should be kept to a minimum.
`Furthermore, the parties request permission to use certain audiovisual
`equipment. Request 2. The parties are allowed to use computers, but
`requests for special equipment will not be honored unless presented in a
`separate communication directed to Trials@uspto.gov not less than five days
`before the hearing. If the request is not received timely, the equipment may
`not be available on the day of the hearing.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that oral argument for this proceeding shall take place
`beginning at 1:00 pm Eastern Time on September 21, 2018, on the ninth
`floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01588 (Patent 8,460,247)
`IPR2017-01589 (Patent 8,597,249)
`IPR2017-01590 (Patent 9,370,641)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Heather M. Petruzzi
`Natalie Pous
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Alexis Cohen
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`Heather.Petruzzi@wilmerhale.com
`Natalie.Pous@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Alexis.cohen@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Barry J. Schindler
`Heath J. Briggs
`Julie P. Bookbinder
`Joshua L. Raskin
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`SchindlerB@gtlaw.com
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com
`BookbinderJ@gtlaw.com
`RaskinJ@gtlawq.com
`
`5
`
`