Paper 26
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: October 29, 2018
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: October 29, 2018
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Pre-Hearing Conference
`By email message dated October 25, 2018, Petitioner requested a pre-
`hearing conference call with the Board to discuss Petitioner’s objections to alleged
`new arguments and evidence included in Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits
`for the hearing scheduled for October 30, 2018, in the captioned cases, or, in the
`alternative, for additional time at the hearing to address those objections. Patent
`Owner responded the same day, contending that a pre-hearing call is not warranted
`at least because there has been no meet and confer between the parties directed at
`limiting the set of issues, the hour per side granted by the Board for oral argument
`should allow sufficient time for the parties to articulate any objections, the Board’s
`Hearing Order provides that it typically reserves rulings on objections until the
`hearing or ruling, and there is limited time available between now and the hearing.
`We have considered the parties’ respective arguments and agree with Patent
`Owner that a pre-hearing call is not warranted here. As set forth in the Hearing
`Order, the parties were to confer regarding any objections to demonstrative
`exhibits, and, “[f]or any issue regarding the proposed demonstrative exhibits that
`cannot be resolved after conferring with the opposing party, the parties may file
`jointly a one-page list of objections at least five business days prior to the hearing.”
`See, e.g., IPR2017–01797, Paper 23, 3. Petitioner has not disputed Patent Owner’s
`assertion that there has been no meet and confer between the parties, but we are in
`receipt of the parties’ Joint Filing of Objections to Demonstratives (e.g., IPR2017–
`01797, Paper 25) and will entertain the parties’ arguments regarding their
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`objections at the oral hearing. We will make a determination at the hearing
`whether additional time should be granted to the parties for such arguments.
`
`
`
`
`Construction of the Claim Term “Instant Voice Message”
`The term “instant voice message” is recited, either expressly or by virtue of
`claim dependency, in each of the claims challenged in the captioned proceedings.
`In Cases IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428, involving the same patent as
`captioned proceeding IPR2017-01801; and Cases IPR2017-01667 and IPR2017-
`01668, involving the same patent as captioned proceedings IPR2017-01797 and
`IPR2017-01798, we ordered additional briefing from the parties in those cases (i.e.,
`Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., and LG Electronics, Inc., Huawei Device Co.,
`Ltd., and Patent Owner) regarding proposed alternative constructions of “instant
`voice message” that were advanced during an oral hearing held in those cases on
`August 30, 2018. See IPR2017-01427, Paper 41; IPR2017-01428, Paper 35;
`IPR2017-01667, Paper 32; IPR2017-01668, Paper 30. Those proposed alternative
`constructions were, specifically, “data structure including a representation of an
`audible message” and “data content including a representation of an audio
`message, not precluding the inclusion of fields.” Id. We hereby place the parties
`on notice that we intend to address those alternative constructions at the
`October 30, 2018, hearing in the captioned proceedings and that the parties should
`be prepared to discuss those constructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01797 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01798 (Patent 8,724,622 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01799 (Patent 8,199,747 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01800 (Patent 8,243,723 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01801 (Patent 8,995,433 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01802 (Patent 7,535,890 B2)
`
`
`For PETITIONER
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip W. Citroën
`Michael A. Wolfe
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`michaelwolfe@paulhastings.com
`PH-Samsung-Uniloc-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`Ryan Loveless
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`4
`
`
`
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
