Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02034, Paper No. 25
`IPR2017-02035, Paper No. 23
`Entered: November 8, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`POWER-PACKER NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`d/b/a GITS MANUFACTURING CO.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`G.W. LISK CO., INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-02034; IPR2017-020351
`Patent 6,601,821 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting the Parties’ Requests for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order that applies to each of these
`proceedings. The parties may not use this caption style.
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02034, Paper No. 25
`IPR2017-02035, Paper No. 23
`Entered: November 8, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`POWER-PACKER NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`d/b/a GITS MANUFACTURING CO.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`G.W. LISK CO., INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-02034; IPR2017-020351
`Patent 6,601,821 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting the Parties’ Requests for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order that applies to each of these
`proceedings. The parties may not use this caption style.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02034; IPR2017-02035
`Patent 6,601,821 B2
`
`
`The parties request oral argument pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70.
`IPR2017-02034, Papers 21, 22; IPR2017-02035, Papers 19, 20. The
`requests are granted. Although these cases are not consolidated, the
`hearings will be held together and a single transcript will be provided for
`both cases.
`Oral argument will be held on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, on the
`ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia, commencing at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Each party will have
`90 minutes of total argument time for both cases. Given the overlap in
`subject matter between the cases, it appears that the most efficient format for
`argument is for the parties to present their arguments for both cases
`concurrently. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at
`issue in these reviews are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner will
`proceed first to present its case with regard to the challenged claims in both
`proceedings and argue its own motions, if any. Thereafter, Patent Owner
`may respond to Petitioner’s arguments in both proceedings and may argue
`its own motions, if any. If Petitioner or Patent Owner reserves time for
`rebuttal or sur-rebuttal, respectively, that time may be used to respond to
`arguments presented by the other party in its immediately preceding
`presentation. See Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018) at 20,
`available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018_Revised_
`Trial_Practice_Guide.pdf. The parties are reminded that they “may only
`present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted.” Id. at 23.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the oral argument, and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the oral argument.
`Live testimony will not be taken from any witness at the oral argument. The
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02034; IPR2017-02035
`Patent 6,601,821 B2
`
`oral argument will be open to the public for in-person attendance. Attendees
`will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. If the parties have
`any concern about disclosing confidential information, they are to contact
`the Board at least 10 days in advance of the oral argument to discuss the
`matter. Any counsel of record may present the party’s argument.
`Any demonstrative exhibits must be served seven (7) business days
`before the oral argument. 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). Demonstrative exhibits
`are not evidence and may not introduce new evidence or arguments.
`Instead, demonstrative exhibits should cite to evidence in the record. The
`parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The
`Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits. The parties shall confer regarding any objection
`either party has to the other party’s demonstrative exhibits and attempt to
`resolve the objections. Should the objections not be resolved, the parties
`must file any objections to the demonstratives with the Board at least three
`(3) business days before the oral argument. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not presented timely 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 either schedule a
`conference call to discuss and rule on the objections or will discuss the
`objections during the oral argument and rule on the objections either at the
`oral argument or after. Demonstratives should be filed at the Board no later
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02034; IPR2017-02035
`Patent 6,601,821 B2
`
`than three (3) business days before the oral argument. A hard copy of the
`demonstratives should be provided to the court reporter at the oral argument.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at 571-272-9797. Requests for audio-visual equipment
`are to be made at least five (5) business days in advance of the oral
`argument date. The 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
`oral argument. 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 oral argument to ensure the clarity and
`accuracy of the reporter’s transcript. Two members of the panel will attend
`the oral argument electronically from remote locations. We will not
`consider a demonstrative that is either not filed or otherwise fully available
`to the judges presiding over the oral argument remotely. If the parties have
`questions as to whether demonstrative exhibits would be sufficiently visible
`and available to all of the judges, the parties are invited to contact the Board
`at 571-272-9797.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02034; IPR2017-02035
`Patent 6,601,821 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Edward R. Lawson Jr.
`Kevin P. Moran
`Jonathan H. Margolies
`Katherine W. Schill
`MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
`erlawson@michaelbest.com
`kpmoran@michaelbest.com
`jhmargolies@michaelbest.com
`kwschill@michaelbest.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian B. Shaw
`Michael J. Berchou
`Alfred Y. Chu
`Andrew J. Anderson
`HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP
`patents@hselaw.com
`bshaw@hselaw.com
`mberchou@hselaw.com
`achu@hselaw.com
`aanderson@hselaw.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
