`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Date: April 12, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZOHO CORPORATION and
`ZOHO CORPORATION PVT., LTD
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MEETRIX IP, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
`and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Setting Consolidated Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. The parties must obtain prior
`authorization to use this caption style. Citations are to IPR2023-00377,
`unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`
`
`I. ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`A. Background
`This Order for a consolidated hearing on April 25, 2024 applies to
`each of the proceedings listed above and also in substance to the three
`following proceedings (collectively, six “Subject Proceedings”) per similar
`orders entered therein: IPR2023-00371 (Judges McNamara, Szpondowski,
`Easthom), IPR2023-00378 (Judges Szpondowski, Boudreau, McNamara),
`IPR2023-00379 (Judges Szpondowski, Boudreau, McNamara). The Board
`originally scheduled oral hearings for one group of the Subject Proceedings
`to occur on April 23, 2024 and for another group of the Subject Proceedings
`to occur on April 25, 2024. This Order supersedes previously entered
`Scheduling Orders setting hearings for April 23, 2024. See IPR2023-00371,
`Paper 7; IPR2023-00378, Paper 7; IPR2023-00379, Paper 7. Hearings
`originally set for April 23, 2024 are hereby set for April 25, 2024 in
`accordance with this Order.
`On March 25, 2024 the parties contacted the Board stating that, given
`the overlap in prior art and other issues, they propose consolidating the oral
`argument for the two groups of proceedings. On March 28, 2024, via email,
`the Board requested that the parties meet and confer and propose an agenda
`for a consolidated hearing. On April 5, 2024 the parties submitted a Joint
`Proposed Hearing Agenda.
`The parties propose conducting a consolidated hearing by grouping
`the issues as follows:
`1. Issues common to IPR2023-00377, -380, -382, - 378, -379
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`
`2. Issues unique to IPR2023-00378, -379
`3. Issues regarding IPR2023-00371.
`Paper 17.
`
`B. Time and Format
`Oral arguments will commence at 12:00 PM Eastern Time on
`April 25, 2024 by VIDEO.2 The hearing will be conducted in the order
`proposed by the parties. The Board will provide a court reporter for the
`consolidated hearing, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official
`record of the hearing. A single transcript will be prepared and that transcript
`will be entered into the record of each of the proceedings.
`Petitioner will have a total of 2 hours to present argument for the
`consolidated hearing, and Patent Owner will have a total of 2 hours to
`respond. The parties will be requested to allocate time to each group of
`issues at the hearing. For each grouping of issues, Petitioner will begin by
`presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for which the Board
`instituted trial, as appropriate to the proposed grouping of issues.
`Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner
`may reserve rebuttal time to respond to arguments presented by Patent
`Owner. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide3
`(“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, Patent Owner may request to reserve
`time for a brief sur-rebuttal. See CTPG 83.
`
`
`2 If there are any concerns about disclosing confidential information, the
`parties must contact the Board at Trials@uspto.gov at least seven (7)
`business days before the hearing date.
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`
`The parties may request a pre-hearing conference in advance of the
`hearing. See Id. at 82. “The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is to
`afford the parties the opportunity to preview (but not argue) the issues to be
`discussed at the hearing, and to seek the Board’s guidance as to particular
`issues that the panel would like addressed by the parties.” Id. If either party
`desires a pre-hearing conference, the parties should jointly contact the Board
`at Trials@uspto.gov at least seven (7) business days before the hearing date
`to request a conference call for that purpose.
`
`C. Demonstratives
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstratives shall be served on
`opposing counsel at least seven (7) business days before the hearing date.
`Demonstratives are to be filed with the Board not later than April 22, 2024. 4
`Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.
`Demonstratives also are not evidence, and will not be relied upon as
`evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral
`presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and
`discussed in the papers. Accordingly, demonstratives shall be clearly
`marked with the words “DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT
`EVIDENCE” in the footer. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364,
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that the Board is obligated under its own
`regulations to dismiss untimely argument “raised for the first time during
`oral argument”). “[N]o new evidence may be presented at the oral
`argument.” CTPG 85; see also St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The
`
`4 The parties may stipulate to an alternative schedule for serving and filing
`demonstratives but must notify the Board of any stipulation.
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Mich., IPR2013-00041, Paper 65, 2–3 (PTAB
`Jan. 27, 2014) (explaining that “new” evidence includes evidence already of
`record but not previously discussed in any paper of record).
`Furthermore, because of the strict prohibition against the presentation
`of new evidence or arguments at a hearing, it is strongly recommended that
`each demonstrative include a citation to a paper in the record, which allows
`the Board to easily ascertain whether a given demonstrative contains “new”
`argument or evidence or, instead, contains only that which is developed in
`the existing record.
`Due to the nature of the Board’s consideration of demonstratives and
`the opportunity afforded for the parties to reach an agreement without
`involving the Board, the Board does not anticipate that objections to
`demonstratives are likely to be sustained. Nevertheless, to the extent that a
`party objects to the propriety of any demonstrative, the parties shall meet
`and confer in good faith to resolve any objections to demonstratives prior to
`filing the objections with the Board. If such objections cannot be resolved,
`the parties may file any objections to demonstratives with the Board no later
`than the time of the hearing. The objections shall identify with particularity
`which portions of the demonstratives are subject to objection (and should
`include a copy of the objected-to portions) and include a one (1) sentence
`statement of the reason for each objection. No argument or further
`explanation is permitted. The Board will consider any objections, and may
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`reserve ruling on the objections.5 Any objection to demonstratives that is
`not timely presented will be considered waived.
`Finally, the parties are reminded that each presenter should identify
`clearly and specifically each paper (e.g., by slide or screen number for a
`demonstrative) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and
`accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all
`participants appearing electronically.
`
`D. Presenting Counsel
`The Board generally expects lead counsel for each party to be present
`at the hearing. See CTPG 11. Any counsel of record may present the
`party’s argument as long as that counsel is present by video.
`
`E. Video or Telephonic Hearing Details
`To facilitate planning, each party must contact the Board at
`PTABHearings@uspto.gov at least five (5) business days prior to the
`hearing date to receive video set-up information. As a reminder, all
`arrangements and the expenses involved with appearing by video, such as
`the selection of the facility from which a party will attend by video, must be
`borne by that party. If a video connection cannot be established, the parties
`will be provided with dial-in connection information, and the hearing will be
`conducted telephonically.
`If one or both parties would prefer to participate in the hearing
`telephonically, they must contact the Board at PTABHearings@uspto.gov at
`
`
`5 If time permits, the Board may schedule a conference call with the parties
`to discuss any filed objections.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`least five (5) business days prior to the hearing date to receive dial-in
`connection information.
`Counsel should unmute only when speaking. The panel will have
`access to all papers filed with the Board, including demonstratives. During
`the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each
`paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to
`ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the
`benefit of all participants appearing electronically. In addition, the parties
`are advised to identify themselves each time they speak. Furthermore, the
`remote nature of the hearing may also result in an audio lag, and thus the
`parties are advised to observe a pause prior to speaking, so as to avoid
`speaking over others.
`If at any time during the hearing, counsel encounters technical or
`other difficulties that fundamentally undermine counsel’s ability to
`adequately represent its client, please let the panel know immediately, and
`adjustments will be made.6
`
`F. Remote Attendance Requests
`Members of the public may request to listen to and/or view this
`hearing. If resources are available, the Board generally expects to grant such
`requests. If either party objects to the Board granting such requests, for
`example, because confidential information may be discussed, the party must
`notify the Board at PTABHearings@uspto.gov at least seven (7) business
`days prior to the hearing date.
`
`6 For example, if a party is experiencing poor video quality, the Board may
`provide alternate dial-in information.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`G. Audio/Visual Equipment Requests
`Any special requests for audio-visual equipment should be directed to
`PTABHearings@uspto.gov. A party may also indicate any special requests
`related to appearing at a video hearing, such as a request to accommodate
`deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals and blind or low vision individuals, and
`indicate how the PTAB may accommodate the special request. Any special
`requests must be presented in a separate communication at least five (5)
`business days before the hearing date.
`
`H. Legal Experience and Advancement Program
`The Board has established the “Legal Experience and Advancement
`Program,” or “LEAP,” to encourage advocates with less legal experience to
`argue before the Board to develop their skills. The Board defines a LEAP
`practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer
`substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal, including PTAB.7
`The parties are encouraged to participate in the Board’s LEAP
`program. Either party may request that a qualifying LEAP practitioner
`participate in the program and conduct at least a portion of the party’s oral
`argument. The Board will grant up to fifteen (15) minutes of additional
`argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and
`the PTAB’s hearing schedule. A party should submit a request, no later than
`
`
`7 Whether an argument is “substantive” for purposes of determining whether
`an advocate qualifies as a LEAP practitioner will be made on a case-by-case
`basis with considerations to include, for example, the amount of time that
`the practitioner argued, the circumstances of the argument, and whether the
`argument concerned the merits or ancillary issues.
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`at least five (5) business days before the oral hearing, by email to the Board
`at PTABHearings@uspto.gov.8
`The LEAP practitioner may conduct the entire oral argument or may
`share time with other counsel, provided that the LEAP practitioner is offered
`a meaningful and substantive opportunity to argue before the Board. The
`party has the discretion as to the type and quantity of oral argument that will
`be conducted by the LEAP practitioner.9 Moreover, whether the LEAP
`practitioner conducts the argument in whole or in part, the Board will permit
`more experienced counsel to provide some assistance to the LEAP
`practitioner, if necessary, during oral argument, and to clarify any statements
`on the record before the conclusion of the oral argument. Importantly, the
`Board does not draw any inference about the importance of a particular issue
`or issues, or the merits of the party’s arguments regarding that issue, from
`the party’s decision to have (or not to have) a LEAP practitioner argue.
`In instances where an advocate does not meet the LEAP eligibility
`requirements due to the number of “substantive” oral hearing arguments, but
`nonetheless has a basis for considering themselves to be in the category of
`advocates that this program is intended to assist, the Board encourages
`argument by such advocates during oral hearings. Even though additional
`
`
`8 Additionally, a LEAP Verification Form shall be submitted by the LEAP
`practitioner, confirming eligibility for the program. A combined LEAP
`Practitioner Request for Oral Hearing Participation and Verification Form is
`available on the LEAP website, www.uspto.gov/leap.
`9 Examples of the issues that a LEAP practitioner may argue include claim
`construction argument(s), motion(s) to exclude evidence, or patentability
`argument(s) including, e.g., analyses of prior art or objective indicia of non-
`obviousness.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`argument time will not be provided when the advocate does not qualify for
`LEAP, a party may share argument time among counsel and the Board will
`permit the more experienced counsel to provide some assistance, if
`necessary, during oral argument, and to clarify any statements on the record
`before the conclusion of the oral argument.
`All practitioners appearing before the Board shall demonstrate the
`highest professional standards. All practitioners are expected to have a
`command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as
`well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that a consolidated oral argument for the Subject
`Proceedings shall commence at 12:00 PM Eastern Time on April 25, 2024
`by video and proceed in the manner set forth herein.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00377 (Patent 9,253,332 B2)
`IPR2023-00380 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`IPR2023-00382 (Patent 9,843,612 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Hector J. Ribera
`C.J. Alice Chuang
`MARTON RIBERA SCHUMANN & CHANG LLP
`hector@martonribera.com
`cjalice@martonribera.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Andrew G. DiNovo
`DINOVO PRICE LLP
`gdonahue@dinovoprice.com
`adinovo@dinovoprice.com
`
`
`11
`
`