`571-272-7822 Entered: November 19, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEMICAPS PTE LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02110
`Case IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110
`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. and Patent Owner SEMICAPS
`Pte Ltd., in each of the above-captioned cases, requested oral argument
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a). E.g., IPR2017-02110, Papers 29, 31.1 The
`requests are granted.
`
`Because the two subject cases involve the same patent and present
`similar issues, a single consolidated argument will be conducted. The
`hearing will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on Monday, December 3, 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 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.
`
`Each party will have a total of ninety (90) minutes to present
`arguments for both cases. The parties may allocate their argument time at
`their discretion over each of the 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 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
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to the papers filed in IPR2017-02110.
`The parties filed substantively similar papers in IPR2017-02112.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110
`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`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 Friday, November 30, 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
`may refer to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board of Regents
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110
`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 1:00 PM ET, on
`Monday, December 3, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02110
`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`John G. Smith
`William S. Foster
`Christopher Bruenjes
`Brianna Lynn Silverstein
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`john.smith@dbr.com
`william.foster@dbr.com
`christopher.bruenjes@dbr.com
`brianna.silverstein@dbr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Hector Ribera
`David D. Schumann
`Ryan Marton
`MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & CHANG LLP
`hector@martonribera.com
`david@martonribera.com
`ryan@martonribera.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`