`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`Page 1
`
` LIBERTY MUTUAL
`
` INSURANCE CO.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs. Case Nos. CBM2012-00002
`
` PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY CBM2012-00003
`
` INSURANCE CO., CBM2012-00004
`
` Patent Owner. CBM2013-00009
`
` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
` Conference Call before
`
` JUDGE JAMESON LEE
`
` JUDGE JONI Y. CHANG
`
` JUDGE MICHAEL R. ZECHER
`
` February 19, 2014
`
` 2:32 p.m.
`
` Taken at:
`
` Jones Day
`
` North Point
`
` 901 Lakeside Avenue
`
` Cleveland, Ohio
`
` Buster Beck, RPR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
`Page 2
`
` O n b e h a l f o f t h e P e t i t i o n e r :
`
` ( v i a t e l e p h o n e )
`
` R o p e s & G r a y L L P , b y
`
` J . S T E V E N B A U G H M A N , E S Q .
`
` J A M E S R . M Y E R S , E S Q .
`
` 7 0 0 1 2 t h S t r e e t N o r t h w e s t
`
` O n e M e t r o C e n t e r
`
` W a s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 5
`
` ( 2 0 2 ) 5 0 8 - 4 6 0 6
`
` S t e v e n . B a u g h m a n @ r o p e s g r a y . c o m
`
` J a m e s . M y e r s @ r o p e s g r a y . c o m
`
` O n b e h a l f o f t h e P a t e n t O w n e r :
`
` J o n e s D a y , b y
`
` J A M E S L . W A M S L E Y , I I I , E S Q .
`
` J O H N V . B I E R N A C K I , E S Q .
`
` C A L V I N P . G R I F F I T H , E S Q .
`
` N o r t h P o i n t , 9 0 1 L a k e s i d e A v e n u e
`
` C l e v e l a n d , O H 4 4 1 1 4
`
` ( 2 1 6 ) 5 8 6 - 3 9 3 9
`
` j l w a m s l e y i i i @ j o n e s d a y . c o m
`
` j v b i e r n a c k i @ j o n e s d a y . c o m
`
` c p g r i f f i t h @ j o n e s d a y . c o m
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` MR. WAMSLEY: This is Jim Wamsley
`
`for patent owner Progressive, and we appreciate
`
`the Board's accommodating request on such short
`
`notice for this call, which hopefully won't
`
`last too long.
`
` But in connection with request for
`
`re-hearing, which Progressive is considering
`
`filing, we requested this conference call in
`
`order to ask that the Board indicate the
`
`specific times at which, and/or the specific
`
`sequence in which, its final decisions were
`
`posted to the PRPS website in the following CBM
`
`cases: CBM 2012-00002, CBM 2012-00004, CBM
`
`2012-00003 and 2013-00009.
`
` We believe that this information
`
`should be public information. We're not trying
`
`to pry, certainly, into the internal operations
`
`or procedures of the Board. And our
`
`understanding is that the decisions were posted
`
`at slightly different times, and that, in
`
`particular, the final decision in 2012-00002
`
`was posted before the decision in 2012-00004 on
`
`January 23. And, in addition, the final
`
`decision in 2012-00003 was posted before the
`
`final decision in 2013-00009 on February 11th.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` Now, the Board's decisions
`
`themselves do not bear a timestamp; however, we
`
`received PRPS system notifications by e-mail of
`
`these decisions in a sequence that confirms the
`
`sequences that I outlined just a minute ago.
`
` And, in addition, last week, when
`
`the decisions came down in case numbers
`
`2012-00003 and 2013-00009, I telephoned the
`
`Board's paralegal, Ms. Vignone, I believe, who
`
`indicated that the decisions would have been
`
`posted at different times because a person can
`
`only post one at a time.
`
` In addition, we have examined the
`
`metadata on the PRPS website, and it's
`
`consistent with our analysis and conclusion
`
`about the sequence and timing, and confirms
`
`that the decisions in 2012-00002 preceded the
`
`decision in 2012-00004; and also, the decision
`
`in 2012-00003 preceded the one in 2013-00009.
`
` So, in a nutshell, we are simply
`
`asking that the Board confirm and provide us
`
`with the, what we think, should be public
`
`information regarding the timing at which these
`
`decisions were posted to the website.
`
` JUDGE LEE: I understand.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` Anything else?
`
` MR. WAMSLEY: Not at this time, no,
`
`Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. Let me put you
`
`on mute for just a second.
`
` (Discussion had off the record.)
`
` JUDGE LEE: We're back.
`
` Let's turn it over to Mr. Baughman
`
`from Liberty.
`
` We'd like to hear whatever you'd
`
`like to say on the subject.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thanks, Your Honor.
`
` Respectfully, we don't think
`
`there's a basis for the request the patent
`
`owner is making here. I know Mr. Wamsley said
`
`first he wasn't trying to pry into the internal
`
`operations and procedures at the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board, but he's now talking about
`
`calling paralegals at the Board to ask about
`
`timing; I don't believe we were contacted about
`
`that call. He's examining metadata. He
`
`certainly does appear to be asking for
`
`discovery of how the Board does what it does.
`
` Respectfully, we submit that the
`
`record is quite clear what the Board has done
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`here. We have final written decisions in all
`
`four of the matters; Mr. Wamsley has identified
`
`each of them as a judgment under Rule 42.2.
`
`And the Board has stated explicitly in each of
`
`those four decisions that the pairs of CBMs
`
`that Mr. Wamsley has referred to were entered
`
`concurrently. So we have the Board stating
`
`precisely what the timing of the decisions was.
`
` And, respectfully, the time that
`
`they may have been posted to a website or that
`
`an e-mail notice may have been generated and
`
`sent to the parties is not the pertinent timing
`
`here; it's the question of when the Board
`
`issued or entered its final judgments that is
`
`pertinent on timing, not website posting. And
`
`I think that's clear from looking at the
`
`statute and the timing provisions in sections
`
`such as 35 U.S.C. 326(a)(11).
`
` The Board addressed, in several
`
`prior calls with the parties, the issue about
`
`the need to argue over timing was one that the
`
`Board deemed unnecessary to address because it
`
`had scheduled and agreed to coordinate these
`
`proceedings so that the final written decisions
`
`in the pairs of CBMs would be issued at the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`same time.
`
` So looking at, for example, the
`
`February 22nd provision, that's paper 16 in CBM
`
`2012-00002, the parties had talked about the
`
`potential unintended effects of proceedings
`
`finishing at different times. The Board noted
`
`that, during the discussion, it became apparent
`
`most of the items of concern were not of issue,
`
`and noted that the Board had told the parties
`
`it expected to enter judgment in both cases on
`
`the same day.
`
` The -- during the December 2nd
`
`telephone conference in these cases, the patent
`
`owner indicated it wouldn't take the position
`
`that each of the CBMs in these pairs that
`
`issued concurrently would block or knock out
`
`the other. I assume they're not changing their
`
`position on that. I know the Board indicated
`
`it wasn't necessary to put that in the order.
`
`But the statement had been made and there were
`
`witnesses. So I assume we are --
`
` JUDGE LEE: Can I interrupt you for
`
`a second?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: I believe I recall the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
` 1 conference call you're mentioning, where you
`
` 2 say they had agreed not to make this type of
`
` 3 argument; but, if my recollection is correct,
`
` 4 that representation only went to the
`
` 5 hypothetical scenario where we issued four
`
` 6 decisions on the same day that they wouldn't
`
`b
`
` 7 argue that each one had stopped the other.
`
` 8 So it results in essentially no
`
` 9 decision being effected. It's a four-way
`
`10 preclusion thing. If I recall correctly, that
`
`11 was what they said they would not contend. I
`
`12 don't think that -- I don't know if we have a
`
`13 transcript of that conference call, but I don't
`
`14 recall that they had ever represented anything
`
`15 more than that.
`
`16 MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you, Your
`
`17 Honor.
`
`18 I want to just clarify, I think
`
`19 it's two at a time, because there are two
`
`20 different patents at issue here. So I think
`
`21 that the representation was, that if pairs of
`
`22 CBMs were decided concurrently, if they were
`
`23 issued concurrently, they wouldn't take the
`
`24 position that those essentially knock each
`
`25 other out. I'm not exactly sure what argument
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`patent owner is going to try to make here about
`
`these pairs. But the Board has said that's
`
`what happened here, these were issued
`
`concurrently.
`
` And I guess the other point I'd
`
`like to put before the Board is, that this is
`
`all cast as the central issue for a potential
`
`motion for re-hearing. That's the request sent
`
`to the Board on February 18th. But a
`
`re-hearing is about reconsidering. It's a
`
`reconsideration under Rule 42.2. Rule 4271
`
`says it's an opportunity to argue that the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked something
`
`previously addressed to the Board in a motion
`
`opposition to reply. That's not what they're
`
`asking about here.
`
` They are asking, as I understand
`
`it, to know when an administrative act of
`
`putting something in an e-mail or in a website
`
`occurred, not when the Board entered its final
`
`judgments in these cases. That, I assume, was
`
`the attempt to undue 18 months of effort based
`
`on that internal working of the Board.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. Is there
`
`anything else from your side, Mr. Baughman?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: No. Thank you, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: And before the Panel
`
`takes some time to consider this, we'll ask if
`
`Mr. Wamsley has anything to add.
`
` MR. WAMSLEY: Thank you. I'll be
`
`brief, Your Honor.
`
` A few points stand out. One is,
`
`most of Mr. Baughman's argument goes to the
`
`merits of the re-hearing request. That's not
`
`what we're here to talk about, I think. I
`
`would submit that the issue is simply a
`
`question of whether the Board will disclose the
`
`timing information that we've requested. It's
`
`a separate issue whether that forms properly
`
`the basis for a valid re-hearing request, and I
`
`don't think the Board need decide that.
`
`Certainly, I would say that the Board should
`
`not decide that without having had the papers
`
`before it.
`
` Secondly, my memory -- I was
`
`present at that call that Your Honor was
`
`referring to back in December of 2013, and my
`
`memory is the same as Your Honor's. And
`
`furthermore, we would disagree with the notion
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`that we're trying to pry into the Board's -- or
`
`get discovery of the Board's procedures. The
`
`e-mail which transmits the final decisions
`
`invites counsel to contact the Board at the
`
`particular phone number its given, and I was
`
`directed to Ms. Vignone once I called that
`
`number, and it was entirely a procedural
`
`question, there was no substance to it.
`
` But she did confirm, as I said
`
`earlier, that since one person uploads one
`
`decision at a time, that they were uploaded and
`
`posted to the PRPS website at separate times.
`
`So I think that, unless Your Honor has further
`
`questions, we'd ask for your consideration of
`
`our remarks, and I appreciate your
`
`consideration.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Great. We are going to
`
`need some time to consider this, so it will
`
`probably take five to 10 minutes. So how about
`
`we all call back in 10 minutes, at 2:55, so you
`
`don't have to wait on line.
`
` MR. WAMSLEY: That would be great.
`
`Thank you very much, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
` (Discussion had off the record.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you for waiting
`
`for the Panel.
`
` Mr. Wamsley, will you be able to
`
`send a file or copy of the transcript?
`
` MR. WAMSLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
` The Panel has considered the
`
`request. There are two pairs of cases, four in
`
`total. The first pair is CBM 2012-00002 and
`
`CBM 2012-00004. The second pair is CBM
`
`2012-00003 and 2013-00009. So in each of these
`
`two pairs of CBMs, the two decisions
`
`cross-reference each other as concurrently
`
`entered. The Board or the Panel considers them
`
`as concurrently entered regardless of the time
`
`of upload in PRPS. And that is also true for
`
`the other pair -- for both pairs, that is the
`
`case.
`
` The Board considers the two final
`
`decisions to be concurrently entered, not
`
`withstanding any difference in upload time as
`
`far as PRPS is concerned. That is all the
`
`Panel needs to say on the issue.
`
` If Progressive is not satisfied
`
`with this result or this -- this level of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`detail of this information we just mentioned,
`
`we really can't help you with anything more
`
`because as far as the Panel is concerned, the
`
`pairs -- each of the pairs have two decisions
`
`that were concurrently entered. That's the
`
`Board's response to Progressive's request
`
`today.
`
` And also, if it is necessary for
`
`Progressive to contact any other part of the
`
`Board, we feel that the call or the contact
`
`should not be at the party because at this
`
`point it is no longer an administerial task.
`
`If you were to call any other staff of the
`
`office in this connection, it should be a joint
`
`call with the opposing counsel.
`
` MR. WAMSLEY: Understood, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: And we appreciate you
`
`filing a copy of the transcript when you can.
`
` MR. WAMSLEY: We will do that.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Is there anything else
`
`from either side?
`
` Okay. If not, then we are
`
`adjourned. Thank you very much.
`
` (The conference call concluded at 2:58 p.m.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`LT]
`
`that as such neporter I took down
`
`Jul. LJU 1’"p11.
`14 Qi—a
`
`OtYPY
`
`I, Buster Beck, do hereby certify
`
`all of the proceedings had in the foregoing
`
`transcript;
`
`that
`
`I have transcribed my said
`
`Stenotype notes into typewritten form as
`
`appears in the foregoing transcript;
`A
`
`that said
`
`transcript is the complete form of
`
`the
`
`proceedings had in said cause and constitutes a
`
`true and correct transcript therein.
`
`
`
`
`y.“ _£W ________
`
`/
`Bwéter Beck, Notary Public
`
`within and for the State of Ohio
`
`My commission expires February 22, 2015.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`