`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 37
`Entered: October 9, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2017-01669 (Patent 6,824,110 B2)
`IPR2017-01821 (Patent 7,200,471 B2)
`IPR2017-02044 (Patent 6,609,049 B1)
`IPR2017-02104 (Patent 7,079,926 B2)
`
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner request an oral hearing pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.70(a) in each of the proceedings captioned above. Case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01669 (Patent 6,824,110 B2)
`IPR2017-01821 (Patent 7,200,471 B2)
`IPR2017-02044 (Patent 6,609,049 B1)
`IPR2017-02104 (Patent 7,079,926 B2)
`
`IPR2017-01669 (“1669 IPR”), Paper 29, Paper 30; Case IPR2017-01821
`(“1821 IPR”), Paper 23, Paper 25, Case IPR2017-02044 (“2044 IPR”),
`Paper 32, Paper 33; and Case IPR2017-02104 (“2104 IPR”), Paper 24, Paper
`25. The parties’ requests are granted. Although these cases are not
`consolidated, the hearings will be held together and a single transcript will
`be provided for all cases.
`The hearing for these proceedings will commence at 11:00 a.m. (ET)
`on November 13, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The hearing will be open to the public
`for in-person attendance, and in-person attendance 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
`seven business days before the hearing to discuss the matter.
`Format and Duration of Arguments for 1821 and 2104 IPRs
`For Case IPR2017-01821, Petitioner requests that each side have 45
`minutes of total argument time, and Patent Owner requests that each side
`have 30 minutes of total argument time. 1821 IPR, Paper 23, 2, Paper 25, 1.
`For Case IPR2017-02104, Petitioner requests that each side have 30 minutes
`of total argument time, and Patent Owner requests that each side have 45
`minutes of total argument time. 2104 IPR, Paper 24, 2, Paper 25, 1. Patent
`Owner requests the oral arguments for Case IPR2017-01821 and Case
`IPR2017-02104 be held consecutively because the IPRs involve patents that
`are related to each other. See 1821 IPR, Paper 23, 1; 2104 IPR, Paper 24, 1.
`Patent Owner, however, is opposed to consolidation of the oral arguments
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01669 (Patent 6,824,110 B2)
`IPR2017-01821 (Patent 7,200,471 B2)
`IPR2017-02044 (Patent 6,609,049 B1)
`IPR2017-02104 (Patent 7,079,926 B2)
`
`because of the differences in the scope of the claims and in the asserted
`grounds between the proceedings. See 1821 IPR, Paper 23, 1; 2104 IPR,
`Paper 24, 1.
`Based on the parties’ proposals and the record in these cases, we will
`hear consecutive arguments for Case IPR2017-01821 and Case IPR2017-
`02104 with a duration of 45 minutes of total argument time for each side for
`Case IPR2017-01821, and a duration of 45 minutes of total argument time
`for each side for Case IPR2017-02104.
`Format and Duration of Arguments for 1669 and 2044 IPRs
`For both Cases IPR2017-01669 and IPR2017-02044, Petitioner
`requests each side have 30 minutes of total argument time. 1669 IPR, Paper
`29, 1; 2044 IPR, Paper 32, 1. Petitioner further requests that the arguments
`for Cases IPR2017-01669 and IPR2017-02044 occur concurrently. See
`1669 IPR, Paper 29, 1 n.1; 2044 IPR Paper 32, 1, n.1. Patent Owner
`requests the oral argument for Cases IPR2017-01669 and IPR2017-02044 be
`consolidated and requests that each side have 60 minutes of total argument
`time for the consolidated arguments. 1669 IPR, Paper 30, 1–2; 2044 IPR,
`Paper 33, 1–2.
`The consolidated format of arguments in Cases IPR2017-01669 and
`IPR2017-02044 is acceptable to the panel, and we will permit 60 minutes of
`total consolidated argument time for each side.
`Accordingly, for each set of oral arguments (i.e., for Case IPR2017-
`01821, for Case IPR2017-02104, and for the consolidated arguments for
`Cases IPR2017-01669 and IPR2017-02044), Petitioner will begin by
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01669 (Patent 6,824,110 B2)
`IPR2017-01821 (Patent 7,200,471 B2)
`IPR2017-02044 (Patent 6,609,049 B1)
`IPR2017-02104 (Patent 7,079,926 B2)
`
`presenting its arguments regarding the challenged claims and grounds in
`both cases, and may reserve argument time for use in rebuttal. Thereafter,
`Patent Owner will argue its opposition to Petitioner’s challenges in both
`cases, and Patent Owner may reserve argument time for use in sur-rebuttal if
`it chooses.1 To the extent Petitioner reserves rebuttal time, Petitioner then
`may make use of that rebuttal time responding to Patent Owner. Finally, if
`Patent Owner reserves sur-rebuttal time, Petitioner may use that time. The
`parties are reminded that arguments made during rebuttal and sur-rebuttal
`periods must be responsive to arguments the opposing party made in its
`immediately preceding presentation. The parties are also reminded that
`during the hearing, the parties “may only present arguments relied upon in
`the papers previously submitted.” Trial Practice Guide August 2018 Update,
`p. 23.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven business days before the hearing. The parties also shall file a
`copy of the demonstratives as an exhibit at least three business days prior to
`the hearing. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology
`Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan,
`IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding
`the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits. The parties shall meet
`
`
`1 See Trial Practice Guide August 2018 Update, p. 20, available at
`www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018_Revised_Trial_Practice_
`Guide.pdf (providing that the “Board may also permit patent owners the
`opportunity to present a brief sur-rebuttal if requested”).
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01669 (Patent 6,824,110 B2)
`IPR2017-01821 (Patent 7,200,471 B2)
`IPR2017-02044 (Patent 6,609,049 B1)
`IPR2017-02104 (Patent 7,079,926 B2)
`
`and confer to discuss any objections to demonstrative exhibits. If any issues
`regarding demonstratives remain unresolved after the parties meet and
`confer, the parties shall file jointly a one-page list of objections to the
`demonstrative exhibits at least three business days before the hearing. For
`each objection, the list must identify with particularity the demonstratives
`subject to the objection and include a short, one-sentence statement
`explaining the objection. The panel will consider the objections and
`schedule a conference call if necessary. Otherwise, the panel will reserve
`ruling on the objections. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits not
`presented timely will be considered waived.
`One or more members of the panel hearing this case will attend the
`hearing remotely via a videoconferencing device and, therefore, will not be
`able to view the projection screen in the hearing room. Consequently, the
`parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically
`each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) or page of the
`record referenced during the hearing.
`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 shall provide a hard copy of their demonstratives to the court reporter
`at the hearing. Requests for audio-visual equipment must be presented in a
`separate communication directed to Trials@uspto.gov not less than five
`business days before the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01669 (Patent 6,824,110 B2)
`IPR2017-01821 (Patent 7,200,471 B2)
`IPR2017-02044 (Patent 6,609,049 B1)
`IPR2017-02104 (Patent 7,079,926 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jason A. Engel
`Alan L. Barry
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Tina Thomas
`Erik Halverson
`K&L GATES LLP
`Jason.Engel.PTAB@klgates.com
`al.barry.ptab@klgates.com
`benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`tina.thomas@klgates.com
`erik.halverson@klgates.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Mark M. Supko
`Vincent J. Galluzzo
`Scott Bittman
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`jsanok@crowell.com
`msupko@crowell.com
`vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`sbittman@crowell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`