`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________
`
`AMPHENOL CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PPC BROADBAND, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00718
`Patent 10,965,063 B2
`__________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The Board tentatively scheduled oral arguments for four related proceedings
`
`(IPR2022-00718, IPR2022-00719, IPR2022-00720, IPR2022-00721 (collectively,
`
`the “Related Proceedings”)) for July 20, 2023. Paper 16. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.70(a), Patent Owner requests oral argument on the instituted ground(s) of
`
`unpatentability, Patent Owner’s identification of allegedly improper new
`
`arguments and evidence (Paper 25) in Petitioner’s Reply,1 any motions to exclude
`
`evidence, if any are filed by DUE DATE 5, and any other issues that may affect the
`
`Board’s determination in this proceeding. Patent Owner also requests oral
`
`argument on any issues raised by Petitioner in its Request for Oral Argument.
`
`Given the overlap in parties, counsel, and issues in the Related
`
`Proceedings, Patent Owner and Petitioner request a consolidated oral argument
`
`for the Related Proceedings.
`
`Patent Owner requests that it and Petitioner each be allotted 120 minutes
`
`of argument time given that there are four Related Proceedings, with different
`
`evidence presented in at least one of the proceedings (IPR2022-00721) and to
`
`allow sufficient time to address Petitioner’s allegedly improper reply arguments
`
`1 The Board indicated during the May 2, 2023 hearing on Patent Owner’s request
`
`for leave to file a motion to strike that this issue could be addressed at the oral
`
`argument. EX2043 52:5-10.
`
`1
`
`
`
`and evidence. To the extent the Board schedules the oral argument to last less
`
`than or more than 240 minutes of argument time, Patent Owner requests that it
`
`be allotted half the length of the oral argument.
`
`Patent Owner requests that the oral argument be held in-person at
`
`USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA. If the Board decides to hold an in-
`
`person hearing,2 Patent Owner asks that two spaces be reserved for counsel at
`
`counsel’s table, and that three additional spaces be reserved in the hearing
`
`room to accommodate additional counsel and corporate representatives. Patent
`
`Owner also requests that two attorneys at Patent Owner’s counsel’s table be
`
`allowed to use computers.
`
`2 Petitioner indicated during a meet-and-confer that it would request that the oral
`
`argument be held virtually by videoconference. Patent Owner acknowledges that
`
`the Scheduling Order states that “PTAB will only conduct an in-person hearing
`
`when requested by all parties.” Paper 12 at 6.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Date: June 13, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Denis J. Sullivan /
`Denis J. Sullivan (Reg. No. 47,980)
` (Reg. No. 75,357)
`BARCLAY DAMON, LLP
`Email: dsullivan@barclaydamon.com
`
`Cory C. Bell (Reg. No. 75,096)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT, & DUNNER LLP
`Email: cory.bell@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`PPC Broadband, Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(e) via electronic mail on June 13, 2023, on the following:
`
`S. Giri Pathmanaban (giri.pathmanaban@lw.com)
`Jonathan M. Strang (jonathan.strang@lw.com)
`Richard G. Frenkel (rick.frenkel@lw.com)
`Richard A. Lowry (richard.lowry@lw.com)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`/Denis J. Sullivan /
`Denis J. Sullivan (Reg. No. 47,980)
`Naresh K. Kannan (Reg. No. 71,730)
`Genevieve M. Halpenny, Ph.D
`(Reg. No. 75,357)
`BARCLAY DAMON, LLP
`Email: dsullivan@barclaydamon.com
`Email: nkannan@barclaydamon.com
`Email: ghalpenny@barclaydamon.com
`
`Cory C. Bell (Reg. No. 75,096)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT, & DUNNER LLP
`Email: cory.bell@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`PPC Broadband, Inc.
`
`
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
