SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`EXHIBIT 2179
`CBM2013-00020 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ----------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ----------------
`
` APPLE, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` V.
`
`PATENT MUCH SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ---------------
`
` CASE CBM2013-00020 and 23
`
` Monday, May 5, 2014
`
` 10:59 a.m. to 11:16 a.m.
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTIN T. ARBES AND THE
`
`HONORABLE MICHAEL P. TIERNEY
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2179
`CBM2013-00020 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ----------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ----------------
`
` APPLE, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` V.
`
`PATENT MUCH SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ---------------
`
` CASE CBM2013-00020 and 23
`
` Monday, May 5, 2014
`
` 10:59 a.m. to 11:16 a.m.
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTIN T. ARBES AND THE
`
`HONORABLE MICHAEL P. TIERNEY
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000002
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` (As introduced on teleconference)
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner, SightSound
`
`Technologies, LLC:
`
` DAVID MARSH, ESQUIRE
`
` WILLIAM LOUDEN, ESQUIRE
`
` Arnold & Porter
`
` 555 Twelfth Street Northwest
`
` Washington, DC 20004
`
` (202) 942-5068
`
`On Behalf of the Petitioner, Apple, Inc.:
`
` J. STEVEN BAUGHMAN, ESQUIRE
`
` CHING-LEE FUKUDA, ESQUIRE
`
` Ropes & Gray
`
` Three Embarcadero Center
`
` San Francisco, California 9411-4006
`
` (415) 315-6300
`
` - - -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000003
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Good morning, Steve
`
`Baughman and Ching-Lee Fukuda for Petitioner.
`
` MR. MARSH: Good morning. David Marsh and
`
`William Louden for Patentee.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Good morning, this is
`
`the court reporter. My name is Sharon James. Could
`
`you please state your names again?
`
` MR. MARSH: David Marsh and William Louden
`
`for Patentee.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Steve Baughman and
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda for Petitioner.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Hello, everyone. This is
`
`Judge Arbes for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`This is a conference call in the case of CBM2013
`
`00020 and 23.
`
` Is Counsel for the Petitioner on the line?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor. Steve
`
`Baughman and Ching-Lee Fukuda for Petitioner.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: And Counsel for the patent
`
`owner?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000004
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. MARSH: Yes, your Honor. David Marsh
`
`and William Louden for the Patentee.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. My understanding is
`
`we have a court reporter today?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: That's correct, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Thank you. Counsel, if you
`
`are kind enough, can you file a copy of the
`
`transcript and exhibits whenever it's available?
`
` MR. MARSH: Yes, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: The conference call was
`
`requested by the parties today to discuss issues
`
`with demonstrative exhibits to be used at the
`
`hearing tomorrow. So, we received an E-mail before
`
`the call with a number of slides that the parties
`
`object to so we can discuss, we can discuss those a
`
`bit with the parties.
`
` A couple of notes before we do. One, just
`
`that demonstrative exhibits are merely visual aids
`
`to assist the party's presentation. The Board has
`
`found it helpful in some cases to have
`
`demonstratives, for instance, showing figures or
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000005
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`annotated figures to aid in the party's explanation
`
`during the hearing. Something to keep in mind is
`
`that demonstrative exhibits are just visual aids.
`
`They are not evidence. And, so, I think this is, in
`
`the normal case, something that the parties should
`
`be able to agree on and should not have a large
`
`number of objections for demonstrative exhibits
`
`given the fact that they are merely visual aids.
`
` So, with that said, the panel does not
`
`intend to spend too much time on demonstrative
`
`exhibits before we reach the merits at this hearing.
`
`So, what we would ask the parties to do is to -- we
`
`can go through maybe one example from each party,
`
`ask the party why it objects to the slide and then
`
`hear from, hear from the other side.
`
` So, we understand that patent owner
`
`objects to five slides of the petitioner and that
`
`the petitioner objects to three of the patent
`
`owner's slides. So, why don't we start with the
`
`petitioner's slides and patent owner. Can you
`
`please point to what you believe is the best example
`
`of the slides at issue and explain the basis for
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000006
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`your objection?
`
` MR. MARSH: Your Honor, slide 7 is
`
`probably illustrative at least of one of the issues
`
`that applies to slide 6. And, your Honor, the issue
`
`that we have with slide 6 and with slide 7 is that
`
`the extent F1 tends to argue that SoftNet teaches
`
`transfer of money electronically with respect to
`
`103, obviously a rejection of such argument was
`
`never previously raised by Apple and cannot for the
`
`first time be raised at the oral hearing. And it
`
`ties back to the fact that it's not being tied back
`
`to any of their SoftNet electronic references, your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Judge Arbes okay. This is
`
`on slide 7 referring to Exhibit 4109 in the 20
`
`proceeding?
`
` MR. MARSH: That's correct, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Counsel for the
`
`Petitioner, would you like to respond?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor. We are
`
`presenting slide 7 to show the background
`
`information that would have been known to a person
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000007
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. We did that in our
`
`petition, pages 2 to 9 in general, and we actually
`
`cited this reference in particular on pages 8 and 9
`
`of our petition and on page 22 footnote 16 of the
`
`petition. So, we really -- we don't see how this is
`
`in any way an inappropriate presentation of an
`
`argument that's been made in this proceeding.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. I take it, Counsel,
`
`that you are not arguing for a new, a new 103 ground
`
`based on this in combination with anything else?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Absolutely not, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Counsel for the
`
`patent owner, would like to respond?
`
` MR. MARSH: Your Honor, to the extent that
`
`Apple intends to argue it solely as in the
`
`background section, it is certainly appropriate. We
`
`agree they want to apply it to any of the
`
`CompuSonics' references. We reiterate it's never
`
`been applied to any of the CompuSonics' references
`
`during any stage of this proceeding.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Okay, anything else
`
`to discuss for slide 7 of Petitioner?
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000008
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. MARSH: This is David Marsh for the
`
`patency. Not with respect to the patency, your
`
`Honor.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: No, I think we have
`
`addressed that objection.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Why don't we go to
`
`the one example from the patent owner's slides and
`
`then the panel can confer briefly.
`
` Counsel for the Petitioner, would you like
`
`to give us an example of how the patent owner's
`
`slides -- explain the basis for your objection?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor. Thank
`
`you.
`
` We determine not to press other objections
`
`to the Board and have limited our concerns to just
`
`this set of slides and we can use 20 and 21 together
`
`if that's okay as an example. These slides are a
`
`discussion of four cases, none of which were
`
`previously cited by the patent owner in submission
`
`to the Board and the Petitioner. They essentially
`
`appear to us to be sort of a sur reply brief that
`
`was not authorized. We're happy to address why each
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000009
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of the four cases is not applicable, doesn't support
`
`the arguments that they're being cited for, but
`
`respectfully, we don't think that that should have
`
`to come out of our allotted time at tomorrow's
`
`hearing to address these late arguments.
`
` Understanding that the Board would rather
`
`not be dealing with procedural issues, if the Board
`
`prefers not to have these slides removed, as an
`
`alternative we just respectfully request maybe an
`
`additional ten minutes during tomorrow's hearing to
`
`address them just because they're not arguments
`
`we've had a chance to respond to previously.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Counsel for the
`
`patent owner?
`
` MR. MARSH: Your Honor, we don't agree
`
`with that characterization. As your Honor is aware,
`
`the one case that was cited by petitioner with
`
`respect to these proceedings and the petition was
`
`Verdegaal Brothers vs. Union Oil which state -- and
`
`they spend -- the petitioner stated, "The claim is
`
`anticipated in each and every element as set forth
`
`and the claimant found, either expressly inherently
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000010
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`described in a prior reference." It's a 102 E case.
`
` The patency -- it wasn't until the reply
`
`did the petitioner state that the public use or
`
`known by others was the basis for the 102 rejection
`
`and these cases refer to the additional evidence and
`
`the like put forward in the reply that was not in
`
`the original petition. The original petition
`
`limited the 103 arguments to a single paragraph of
`
`the declaration of Mr. Kelly.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, these cases that
`
`are cited on pages 20 and 21, they don't appear in
`
`any of the briefs in this case?
`
` MR. MARSH: That's correct, your Honor.
`
`They were raised -- they had to be raised in light
`
`of the fact that new -- for the first time in our,
`
`in our evidence in chief we put forward on page 21
`
`of our evidence in chief that the CompuSonics'
`
`system and the petitioner never raised whether
`
`CompuSonic's system was known or used in section
`
`102. In its reply, your Honor, they put forward
`
`that it was known by others and in light of that,
`
`and without the ability to brief post reply, that's
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000011
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`why these are raised, your Honor.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Your Honor, if I might
`
`briefly respond for Petitioner.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Briefly.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: When we produced the
`
`challenge based on 102 for CompuSonics, we state
`
`specifically the technology and concepts embodied in
`
`CompuSonics' publicly disclosed system and we've
`
`been making our -- this public disclosure argument
`
`from the beginning. Every entry in our claim chart
`
`begins with the CompuSonics systems disclosures and
`
`it's supported in the Kelly declaration paragraph 32
`
`as well. So, that's our position, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay, the panel will confer.
`
`One note before we do. We have seen this situation
`
`before where one party will, will argue that the
`
`other side made an improper new argument in its
`
`reply, and it's -- certainly you're free to make
`
`that argument. I'm not sure we need slides to --
`
`that we can hear a party on that, on that issue, but
`
`that is something that the parties are free to
`
`argue, that a reply went beyond the bounds permitted
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000012
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`by rule.
`
` So, anything else from the parties before
`
`the panel confers and we can discuss these two
`
`examples?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: No thank you, your Honor.
`
` MR. MARSH: No thank you, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. We'll go on mute and
`
`the panel will be back in just a minute.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you.
`
` (Pause in the proceedings.)
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay, this is Judge Arbes.
`
`The panel has had a chance to confer.
`
` Are the parties still on the line?
`
` MR. MARSH: Yes, your Honor.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Yes, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. The panel has
`
`conferred. We don't believe that any of the slides
`
`need to be struck or that the parties should be
`
`prevented from showing the slides. Again, much of
`
`the exhibits are merely visual aids. The parties
`
`are free to make the arguments that they want at the
`
`hearing. We're not sure that these -- the
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000013
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`demonstrative exhibits of this nature are really
`
`necessary at the hearing for things like case law
`
`and other things of this nature.
`
` The patent owner slides appear to be just
`
`general case law and the Board is well versed in
`
`that law. So, the parties can just make their
`
`arguments. But we're not prepared at this point to
`
`order that either party cannot present these slides
`
`in particular. So, both parties can go ahead and
`
`file their demonstrative exhibits. It would
`
`probably makes more sense to file one whole set
`
`rather than two sets. So, if the parties today can
`
`file a complete set of demonstratives exhibits in
`
`each case, that would be preferable.
`
` Any questions from either party?
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thanks, your Honor. Just
`
`to clarify for Petitioner, that's one set per party?
`
` JUDGE ARBES: That's correct, yes.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: I think, and correct me if
`
`I'm wrong, Counsel, but I believe that the
`
`demonstrative exhibits that were filed so far were
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000014
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`just the ones that were not objected to. Is that
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: I wanted to make sure you
`
`didn't want the parties to file in a single
`
`submission.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: No. I think both parties
`
`can file a full demonstrative set in each case as
`
`one exhibit each. But that should include both the
`
`ones that were filed already and the ones that we
`
`discussed today.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Understood, your Honor.
`
`Thank you.
`
` MR. MARSH: Understood, your Honor. Your
`
`Honor, would you want us to file a motion to expunge
`
`the partial set that was filed on Friday?
`
` JUDGE ARBES: No, that's fine. We can
`
`leave it in.
`
` MR. MARSH: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Okay. Thank you all for
`
`your time and we will see you at the hearing
`
`tomorrow.
`
` MR. BAUGHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` MR. MARSH: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000015
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 15
`
` JUDGE ARBES: Bye.
`
` (The proceedings concluded at 11:16 a.m.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
`
`PAGE 000016
`
`Conference Call
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`May 5, 2014
`
`Page 16
`
` CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
`
` I, SHARON M. JAMES, hereby certify that I am
`
` the certified shorthand reporter who, on behalf
`
` of Alderson Reporting Company, stenographically
`
` reported the foregoing proceedings via
`
` telephone conference call to the best of my
`
` ability.
`
` /s/ Sharon M. James
`
` __________________________
`
` Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Alderson Reporting Company
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`
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
