Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 20
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 14, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEN B. BARRETT, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
`and MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`2 This is not an order from an expanded panel of the Board. Judges
`Easthom, Smith, and Chung are paneled on IPR2017-01683. Judges
`Easthom, Barrett, and Smith are paneled on IPR2017-01684 and
`IPR2017-01685.
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 14, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEN B. BARRETT, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
`and MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`2 This is not an order from an expanded panel of the Board. Judges
`Easthom, Smith, and Chung are paneled on IPR2017-01683. Judges
`Easthom, Barrett, and Smith are paneled on IPR2017-01684 and
`IPR2017-01685.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner Google LLC and Patent Owner Uniloc 2017 LLC,3 in each
`
`
`of the above-captioned cases, requested oral argument pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.70(a), and both parties request a single consolidated argument for all
`
`three cases. E.g., IPR2017-01683, Papers 18, 19.4 The requests are granted.
`
`
`
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on Tuesday,
`
`October 16, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.5 The hearings will be open to the
`
`public for in-person attendance that will be accommodated on a first-come,
`
`first-served basis. The Board will provide a court reporter, and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearings.
`
`
`
`As proposed by both parties, each party will have a total of forty-five
`
`(45) minutes to present arguments for all three cases. Petitioner bears the
`
`ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s patent claims at issue are
`
`unpatentable. Thus, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case with
`
`respect to the challenged patent claims and grounds for which the Board
`
`instituted trial; thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s
`
`
`3 Patent Owner previously filed Updated Mandatory Notices identifying
`Uniloc 2017 LLC as the patent owner. E.g., IPR2017-01683, Paper 17.
`
`4 Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to the papers filed in IPR2017-01683.
`The parties filed substantively similar papers in the other cases listed in the
`caption.
`
`5 We acknowledge Patent Owner’s request to hold the hearing in Dallas,
`Texas. The judges paneled on these cases are located in Virginia and
`California, but not Texas.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`arguments; and Petitioner may reserve some of its argument time to respond
`
`to Patent Owner’s presentation.
`
`
`
`The parties also should note that at least one member of the panel may
`
`be attending the hearing by video from a remote location. 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 and the
`
`ability of any judge participating in the hearing remotely to closely follow
`
`the presenter’s arguments.
`
`
`
`The parties are reminded that the demonstrative exhibits must be
`
`served and filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). Additionally, the
`
`parties are requested either to file any demonstrative exhibits no later
`
`than 4 pm ET on Monday, October 15, 2018, or to provide a courtesy copy
`
`of any demonstrative exhibits to the Board by emailing them to
`
`Trials@uspto.gov no later than that date and time.
`
`
`
`The parties must attempt to resolve any objections to the
`
`demonstratives, and, if the objections cannot be resolved, the parties must
`
`file them with the Board 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. The parties
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`may refer to 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.
`
`
`
`Requests for audio-visual equipment are to be made five (5)
`
`business days in advance of the hearing date. Any 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 Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the
`
`hearings, although lead or back-up counsel of record may make the
`
`presentation. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not attend
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Attorneys seated at counsel table will be allowed to use computers.
`
`See IPR2017-01683, Paper 18, 1 (Petitioner requesting that three of its
`
`attorneys be allowed to use computers.).
`
`
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01683 (Patent 8,571,194 B2)
`IPR2017-01684 (Patent 7,853,000 B2)
`IPR2017-01685 (Patent 7,804,948 B2)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`
`
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on
`
`Tuesday, October 16, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Erika Arner
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`
`Jason Stach
`jason.stach@finnegan.com
`
`Daniel Cooley
`daniel.cooley@finnegan.com
`
`Cara Lasswell
`cara.lasswell@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean Burdick
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Ryan Loveless
`ryan@etheridgelaw.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
