throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 28
` Entered: January 24, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IEE SENSING, INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`
`The parties requested oral argument pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. Papers 22, 25. The parties’ requests are
`
`granted.
`
`Oral argument for the proceeding will commence at 10:00 AM
`
`Eastern Time on February 12, 2019, on the ninth floor of Madison Building
`
`East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. As stated on the
`
`Office’s website (uspto.gov), “[a]lthough parts of the federal government
`
`have experienced a lapse in appropriated funding, the USPTO remains open
`
`for business as normal . . . because the agency has access to prior-year fee
`
`collections, which enables the USPTO to continue normal operations for a
`
`few weeks.” The parties should monitor the Office’s website to verify that
`
`the Office will be open on the date scheduled for oral argument. If the
`
`Office is closed on that date, the Board will provide further guidance as soon
`
`as the Office reopens.
`
`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. The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the
`
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing.
`
`Petitioner requests one (1) hour of total time to present argument.
`
`Paper 22, 2. Patent Owner requests forty-five (45) minutes of total time to
`
`present argument. Paper 25, 2. We allocate each party one (1) hour of total
`
`argument time. The parties may use their one hour to present their
`
`arguments as they see fit. If the panel requires a lengthy examination of a
`
`party’s argument, the panel may extend argument time. If the panel extends
`
`argument time for one party, the panel will extend argument time for the
`
`other party by an equal amount.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at issue
`
`are unpatentable. The burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability
`
`of proposed substitute claims presented in the contingent motion to amend is
`
`not placed on the Patent Owner. See Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d
`
`1290, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “the PTO may not place that
`
`burden [of persuasion with respect to the patentability of amended claims]
`
`on the patentee”). Therefore, at the hearing, Petitioner will proceed first to
`
`present its arguments with regard to the challenged claims and grounds on
`
`which basis we instituted trial in this proceeding. Petitioner may reserve
`
`rebuttal time. Thereafter, Patent Owner will argue its opposition to
`
`Petitioner’s case and present the issues for which it bears the ultimate
`
`burden. Patent Owner may also reserve rebuttal time. To the extent
`
`Petitioner reserves rebuttal time, Petitioner then may make use of its rebuttal
`
`time responding to Patent Owner. To the extent Patent Owner reserves
`
`rebuttal time, Patent Owner then may make use of its rebuttal time
`
`responding to Petitioner.
`
`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 seven business days prior to
`
`the hearing. Each party shall provide a hard copy of its demonstratives to
`
`the court reporter at 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 and confer to discuss any objections to demonstrative exhibits at
`
`least three business days before the hearing. If any issues regarding
`
`demonstratives remain unresolved after the parties meet and confer, the
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`
`parties shall file jointly a one-page list of objections to the demonstrative
`
`exhibits at least two 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, rulings on the objections will be reserved until
`
`the hearing or after the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits not
`
`presented timely will be considered waived.
`
`The parties are reminded that demonstrative exhibits are visual aids to
`
`oral argument and not evidence, and should be clearly marked as such. For
`
`example, each slide may be marked with the words “DEMONSTRATIVE
`
`EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE” in the footer. Demonstrative exhibits may
`
`not be used to advance arguments or introduce evidence not previously
`
`presented in the record. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that the “Board was obligated to dismiss [the
`
`petitioner’s] untimely argument . . . raised for the first time during oral
`
`argument”). Instead, demonstrative exhibits should cite to the briefs and
`
`evidence in the record.
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`
`at the hearing. Lead or backup counsel, however, may present the party’s
`
`argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`
`attending the hearing, that party should initiate a joint telephone conference
`
`with the other party and the panel no later than three business days prior to
`
`the hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`Per the recent update to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, either
`
`party may request a pre-hearing conference (Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, August 2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) (found at
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`
`the following link to the USPTO website: https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP)).
`
`Requests for a pre-hearing conference must be made by January 31, 2019.
`
`To request such a conference, an email should be sent to Trials@uspto.gov
`
`including several dates and times of availability for one or both parties, as
`
`appropriate, that are generally no later than three business days prior to the
`
`oral hearing. Please refer to the Guide for more information on the
`
`prehearing conference.
`
`Requests for audio-visual equipment are to be made five business days
`
`in advance of the hearing 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 hearing.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 10:00 AM Eastern
`
`Time on February 12, 2019, in Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Frank Angileri
`fangileri@brookskushman.com
`
`Brian Doughty
`bdoughty@brookskushman.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason Mudd
`Jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`
`Eric Buresh
`Eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`Mark Lang
`Mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`
`6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket