Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 75
`Entered: Apr.19, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`LIQWD, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2018-00025
`Patent 9,668,954 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 75
`Entered: Apr.19, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`LIQWD, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2018-00025
`Patent 9,668,954 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00025
`Patent 9,668,954 B2
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have requested oral hearing pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the Scheduling Order in these proceedings. Papers 54
`and 57. The parties’ requests for oral hearing are granted as provided
`below. This Order supersedes the earlier Order Granting Request for Oral
`Argument (Paper 68), which earlier order set oral argument for April 23,
`2019. The date for oral argument has been rescheduled based on Patent
`Owner’s unopposed request, and the Board’s ability to accommodate that
`request.
`
`Time and Format
`Oral argument will begin at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on May 20,
`2019, on the ninth floor of the Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia. The argument be held in Hearing Room A. The
`hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance, which will be
`accommodated on a first come, first served basis.
`Each side will have a total of 60 minutes to present its arguments, and
`each party may use this time as they deem appropriate subject to the
`following limitations. Petitioner will open the hearing and may present
`arguments regarding the challenged claims for which the Board instituted
`trial. Patent Owner will then respond to Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner
`and Patent Owner may each reserve up to 15 minutes of rebuttal time and
`sur-rebuttal time respectively for arguments presented during the hearing.1
`
`
`1 The parties will also be permitted to argue, if they choose, during their
`allotted time that certain argument and/or evidence should or should not be
`considered in these proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), or should be
`excluded pursuant to the parties respective motions to exclude. See, e.g.,
`Papers 51, 55, 58.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00025
`Patent 9,668,954 B2
`If the parties anticipate disclosing during oral argument information
`that is alleged to be confidential under the terms of the Protective Order, the
`parties should segregate, if at all possible, such disclosure of confidential
`information to a certain portion of their respective presentations during oral
`argument. Further to this point, the parties should inform the Board during
`the hearing, and before such disclosure is made, that they intend to argue a
`point or cite an exhibit that requires disclosure of confidential or potentially
`confidential information so that the Board may take appropriate action to
`safeguard such information. Moreover, the Board requests the parties
`consider whether it is possible to make their arguments during oral argument
`without specific disclosure of confidential information (e.g., referring to the
`evidence generally, and directing the Board’s attention to documents and/or
`exhibits to which the Board and parties have access, but which are presently
`filed subject to a motion to seal). Objections during the other party’s
`portions of oral argument are generally not expected, except to the extent
`necessary to preserve information as confidential. These efforts will assist
`the Board in maintaining, to the full extent possible, this proceeding as open
`to the public, consistent with our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. There
`transcript will be entered when available, subject to resolution of any issues
`as to confidentiality of portions of the transcript.
`
`Demonstratives
`At least seven (7) business days before the hearing date, each party
`shall serve on the other party any demonstrative exhibit(s) it intends to use
`during the hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b). Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00025
`Patent 9,668,954 B2
`§ 42.70(b), each party shall, instead of filing, provide a courtesy copy of the
`demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least three full business days prior to
`the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`Any argument presented in the demonstrative exhibits must be
`supported by evidence already of record. The demonstrative exhibits,
`however, are not evidence. Instead, they are intended to assist the parties in
`presenting their oral arguments to the Board. Also, the demonstrative
`exhibits are not a mechanism for making arguments not previously
`presented. The panel will not consider arguments or evidence appearing
`only in demonstrative exhibits. The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical,
`Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the University of
`Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB January 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for
`guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`Due to the nature of the demonstrative exhibits, the panel does not
`anticipate that objections to such exhibits would likely be sustained.
`Nevertheless, to the extent that there is any objection to the propriety of the
`demonstrative exhibits, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to
`resolve any issue. If the parties cannot resolve the issues regarding the
`demonstrative exhibits on their own, the objecting party may file a one-page
`list of its objections to the demonstrative exhibits with the Board at least
`three full business days before the hearing. The objecting party should
`identify with particularity which portions of the demonstrative exhibits it
`objects to, and include a one-sentence statement of the reason for each
`objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted. The panel will
`schedule a conference call if necessary. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived.
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00025
`Patent 9,668,954 B2
`The parties are reminded that each 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. When introducing a demonstrative slide relating to
`information subject to a motion to exclude or strike or other objection,
`counsel will briefly note that status on the oral record.
`Lead Counsel
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the oral
`hearing, although any counsel of record may present the party’s argument.
`If either lead counsel is unable to be present at the hearing, the Board shall
`be advised by email no later than two business days prior to the oral hearing,
`and such lead counsel shall be available for a conference call if necessary.
`Audio/Visual Equipment Requests
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment must be made five business days prior to 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00025
`Patent 9,668,954 B2
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michelle E. O’Brien
`Timothy J. Murphy
`THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC
`mobrien@marburylaw.com
`tjmurphy@marburylaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Matthew K. Blackburn
`DIAMOND MCCARTHY LLP
`mblackburn@diamondmccarthy.com
`
`Rivka Monheit
`PABST PATENT GROUP LLP
`rivka@pabstpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
