`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: October 2, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNITED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUSAN McKNIGHT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01686 (Patent 9,253,973 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01687 (Patent 9,066,511 B2)
`____________
`
`Before JAMES A. TARTAL, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
` ORDER
`Requests for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01686 (Patent 8,685,048 B2)
`IPR2017-01687 (Patent 8,709,027 B2)
`
`
`United Industries Corporation (“Petitioner”) and Susan McKnight,
`
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) request oral argument in cases IPR2017-01686 and
`
`IPR2017-01687 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 26 and 27, IPR2017-
`
`01686; Papers 23 and 24, IPR2017-01687. The requests for oral argument
`
`are granted as provided below.
`
`Cases IPR2017-01686 and IPR2017-01687 have not been
`
`consolidated or joined, but entail overlapping issues such that oral argument
`
`will be provided in a single hearing on October 18, 2018, beginning at
`
`1:00 PM Eastern Time on the ninth floor of the Madison Building East, 600
`
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA.1 Each party will have a total of 60 minutes
`
`of argument time. The parties may allocate their argument time at their
`
`discretion over each of the two cases, not to exceed 60 minutes in total for
`
`each party. First, Petitioner will present arguments in cases IPR2017-01686
`
`concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,685,048 B2 and IPR2017-01687 concerning
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,066,511 B2, including arguments directed to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Amend in IPR2017-01686. Patent Owner then will have
`
`the opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s arguments and to present
`
`arguments in support of its Motion to Amend in IPR2017-01686. Next,
`
`Petitioner may use any time it has reserved for rebuttal to respond to Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments. Then, Patent Owner may present a brief sur-rebuttal if
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner and Patent Owner have each agreed to a combined hearing for
`the two cases with Petitioner requesting 45 minutes and Patent Owner
`requesting 60 minutes. Paper 26, 2–3, and Paper 27, 2, IPR2017-01686;
`Paper 23, 2–3, and Paper 24, 2, IPR2017-01687.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01686 (Patent 8,685,048 B2)
`IPR2017-01687 (Patent 8,709,027 B2)
`
`
`it has reserved time.2 We remind the parties that rebuttal and sur-rebuttal
`
`time should only be used to respond to arguments the opposing party made
`
`during its directly preceding presentation.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. The
`
`hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that will be
`
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. If the parties have any
`
`concern about disclosing confidential information, they are requested to
`
`contact the Board at least seven days in advance of the hearing to discuss the
`
`matter. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served
`
`at least seven business days before the hearing date and filed no later than
`
`the time of the oral argument. The parties also shall provide a courtesy copy
`
`of any demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least five business days prior to
`
`the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`
`The parties must file any objections to the demonstrative exhibits 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
`
`demonstrative exhibits 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
`
`
`
`2 We provide a sequence for the two cases, however, we will entertain a joint
`request of the parties to alter the order in which the two cases are argued if
`requested by the parties at the outset of the oral argument.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01686 (Patent 8,685,048 B2)
`IPR2017-01687 (Patent 8,709,027 B2)
`
`
`schedule a conference if deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will
`
`reserve ruling on the objections until after the oral argument. The parties are
`
`directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Board of Regents
`
`of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2015)
`
`(Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative
`
`exhibits. The parties are reminded that the demonstrative exhibits presented
`
`in this case are not evidence and are intended only to assist the parties in
`
`presenting their oral argument to the panel.
`
`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 expects 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. Any special requests for audio-visual equipment should
`
`be directed to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be
`
`honored unless presented in a separate communication not less than five
`
`days before the hearing directed to the above email address.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01686 (Patent 8,685,048 B2)
`IPR2017-01687 (Patent 8,709,027 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael R. Houston
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`Naikang Tsao
`ntsao@foley.com
`
`Jeffrey R. Lomprey
`jlomprey@foley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Linderman
`lind@ip-lawyers.com
`
`Justin Durelli
`durelli@ip-lawyers.com
`
`
`5
`
`