1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ----------------------------------x
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
` and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` SMARTFLASH LLC,
` Patent Owner.
` ----------------------------------x
` CASES: CBM2014-00194, CBM2014-00199
` (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
` CBM2014-00190
` (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
` CBM2014-00192
` (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
` CBM2014-00193
` (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
` Tuesday, May 5, 2015
` 2:00 p.m.
`
`Reported by:
`Maureen Ratto, RPR, CCR
`Job No: 39073
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ----------------------------------x
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
` and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` SMARTFLASH LLC,
` Patent Owner.
` ----------------------------------x
` CASES: CBM2014-00194, CBM2014-00199
` (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
` CBM2014-00190
` (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
` CBM2014-00192
` (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
` CBM2014-00193
` (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
` Tuesday, May 5, 2015
` 2:00 p.m.
`
`Reported by:
`Maureen Ratto, RPR, CCR
`Job No: 39073
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
` B E F O R E:
` HON. JENNIFER S. BISK,
` HON. RAMA G. ELLURU,
` HON. JEREMY M. PLENZLER,
` HON. MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
` Administrative Patent Judges
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S:
` For the Petitioner:
` FISH & RICHARDSON, LLP
` 1425 K Street, NW, 11th Floor
` Washington DC 20005
` BY: W. KARL RENNER, ESQ.
` renner@fr.com
` THOMAS ROZYLOWICZ, ESQ.
` rozylowicz@fr.com
`
` For the Patent Owner:
` DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
` 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
` McLean, VA 22102
` (571) 765-7700
` BY: MICHAEL R. CASEY, ESQ.
` mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
` JUDGE ELLURU: This is Rama
` Elluru, and I have Judges Bisk,
` Clements and Plenzler on the line with
` me. This is the initial conference call
` for CBM2014 00190, -192, -193 and -194
` and -199, Samsung against Smartflash.
` Can we have counsel for
` Petitioner identify themself, please?
` MR. RENNER: Yes. This is Carl
` Renner from Fish & Richardson, and I'm
` joined by Tom Rozylowicz and Andrew
` Patrick.
` JUDGE BISK: Thank you, Mr.
` Renner. Do you expect anyone else
` today?
` MR. RENNER: No, we don't.
` Thank you.
` JUDGE BISK: Is there a court
` reporter at your request on this line?
` MR. RENNER: There is not.
` MR. ROZYLOWICZ: There is a
` court reporter, I believe at the
` request of Patent Owner.
` JUDGE BISK: And can Patent
` Owner please identify counsel?
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`4
`
`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
`
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor.
` Michael Casey of Davidson Berquist
` Jackson & Gowdey, and yes, we did
` arrange for a court reporter.
` JUDGE BISK: And we would like
` that the transcript of today's
` teleconference be filed as an exhibit
` in this case. Thank you.
` So we received a list of
` proposed motions by Patent Owner but
` not Petitioner, is that correct,
` Mr. Renner?
` MR. RENNER: That is correct,
` your Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: So Mr. Casey,
` let's go through your list of motions
` starting with the first one, which is
` titled "Motion For Routine Discovery".
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Are you requesting
` authorization for -- to file a motion
` for discovery at this point?
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor. And
` Owner wishes to file a motion for
` routine discovery to obtain documents
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`5
`
`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
`
` that relate to non-infringing
` alternatives and arguments of
` non-infringement in the District Court
` litigation identified in the list of
` proposed motions, as I believe, it is
` proper under the routine discovery
` requirements.
` JUDGE ELLURU: You have the
` evidence that Petitioner has allegedly
` taken in his deposition by saying that
` the claims result in preemption here
` and saying they don't infringe in the
` District Court.
` What other evidence are you
` looking for that is relevant to the
` issues in this trial?
` MR. CASEY: I'm sorry, your
` Honor. I didn't understand your
` question. Would you mind repeating it?
` JUDGE ELLURU: Sure. You clearly
` have evidence that Petitioner allegedly
` took an inconsistent position in a
` District Court by saying that they
` don't infringe and then saying here
` that the claims result in preemption,
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`6
`
`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
`
` correct?
` MR. CASEY: Correct, yes. But
` Patent Owner does not have the actual
` documents that are at issue because
` they're all filed under seal in the
` District Court litigation.
` So Patent Owner believes it
` would be proper to have received them
` in this context and they are usable in
` this context. There are
` non-infringement -- it's my
` understanding that there are at least a
` non-infringement argument or a report
` and reports, one or more reports on
` non-infringing alternatives.
` JUDGE ELLURU: But my question
` is, do you have the evidence that
` they've allegedly took an inconsistent
` position, according to you? What other
` evidence is relevant to the issues and
` how is that -- how is evidence of the
` non-infringing products -- what
` authority do we have to grant that
` under even your routine discovery rule
` that you cite?
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`7
`
`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
`
` MR. CASEY: So, your Honor, the
` question of non-infringing alternatives
` turns on how many non-infringing -- may
` turn on how many non-infringing
` alternatives there are. It is not
` sufficient to simply say that they have
` alleged they're not infringing
` alternatives. The actual information
` about what those alternatives are and
` proof that they actually meet the
` various fields being used or being
` alleged to be granted is core to the
` issue of whether or not preemption
` exists.
` JUDGE ELLURU: And also, aren't
` there two different standards at play
` with respect to the -- looks like the
` preemption here under the broadest
` reasonable interpretation, and the
` broadest reasonable interpretation that
` is being applied in the District Court?
` MR. CASEY: So, your Honor, if
` they are saying that the difference
` between broadest reasonable
` interpretation and plain and ordinary
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`8
`
`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
`
` meaning is appropriate, then they
` certainly haven't made that argument in
` terms of what's being preempted. There
` is no broadest reasonable
` interpretation for the field that is
` being preempted. It is the broadest
` reasonable interpretation for the
` elements of the claims.
` So in terms of preemption, I
` believe that the -- that the issues are
` the same in both the litigation and the
` current PTAB proceeding.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Mr. Renner, would
` you like to respond?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` Thank you.
` I guess I begin with the notion
` that I don't believe that -- we don't
` believe that routine discovery is
` actually proper for this kind of a
` request. As we've seen from, for
` instance, Garmin V. Cuozzo 2012 0001
` February 26, at 384, we see that
` routine discovery is narrowly directed
` to specific information known to the
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`9
`
`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
`
` responding party to be inconsistent.
` It is a narrowly cast type of
` discovery.
` We also see that from Blackberry
` and EyeChart 2013 00126, it's seen that
` the self-executing and self-enforcing
` rule that is at play here, that the
` routine discovery here with the notion
` of known positions that are
` inconsistent is a self-enforcing and
` self-regulating qualifier, and
` certainly, we say that the notion of it
` being a known inconsistency of our
` position is there is no known
` inconsistency at all.
` I think you're rightly pointed
` out there are claim construction
` differences here that if they're on the
` scope of the right that is in question,
` and it's a different question in the
` District Court or with a different
` standard of claim construction over in
` the District Court that it is here, as
` well as the fact that when we think of
` what constitutes a non-infringing
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`10
`
`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
`
` position, we know that two things
` really are at play; first, is that an
` abstract idea is only informed, if
` ever, by notions that are within the
` context of that abstract and there is
` really no proofs, no evidence, no
` findings, no exploration as to whether
` or not any non-infringement positions
` taken by Samsung have ever even
` wandered into the abstract that they've
` claimed at this point in the District
` Court; and moreover, as a legal basis,
` we know that we that preemption is
` relative.
` So the existence of a
` non-infringing position, in general,
` that doesn't -- that's not mutually
` exclusive with preemption.
` Preemption can occur in a
` variety of abstractions, if you will,
` leaving open the question for
` non-infringing alternatives and/or
` positions.
` So even if there were -- even if
` the request itself is aimed at
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`11
`
`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
`
` information that even if it were given
` and even if it were exactly what I
` think is contemplated, it wouldn't
` inform the answer to the question. And
` so even under an additional discovery
` standard, which is higher than many, we
` don't think it would be an appropriate
` use.
` We're happy to talk about the
` relative nature, if it's helpful, of
` the preemption right, because I think
` that does bear on the question as well,
` but I don't want to say too much if
` it's not helpful to you or Mr. Casey.
` JUDGE ELLURU: I think we
` understand your position, Mr. Renner.
` Is there anything else you would like
` to add, Mr. Casey?
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor. The
` reason that this is actually not
` limited to the issue in which
` Mr. Renner framed it is because
` Petitioner, themselves, in their
` response, for example, in the -0190
` position don't qualify that it's a
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`12
`
`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
`
` relative preemption versus a full
` preemption. They say literally, "In a
` similar manner, the recitation of
` basic, well known computer modules and
` terminology in Claims 13 and 14 of the
` '720 Patent, does not have anything
` meaningful that would prevent claims in
` Claims 13 and 14 from effectively
` preempting all relevant uses of the
` general idea of using a third party
` developing payment."
` So that's a very broad statement
` in terms of what they believe is being
` preempted. And so, the thrust of that
` statement is part of the reason that
` this routine discovery is applicable.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Mr. Casey, can you
` point to any of our decisions that rely
` on preemption or refer to preemption?
` MR. RENNER: The PTAB positions,
` your Honor or --
` JUDGE ELLURU: No. Any other
` cases here that we're discussing today.
` MR. CASEY: Every -- all four
` cases that are -- that had 101 issues
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`13
`
`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
`
` raised in them discussed preemption. I
` think I misunderstood what your
` question is.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Do any of our
` institutions discuss the decision that
` refers to preemption?
` MR. CASEY: Your Honor, that's
` one of the factors inside the 101
` discussion itself. I don't know that I
` have tried to memorize the entire
` decision. If you give me a second I
` can certainly look for you but it is a
` factor in the preemption -- preemption
` is a factor in the 101 analysis, and it
` is a factor that is relied on by
` Petitioner. Petitioner can't have the
` PTAB rewrite its brief for it.
` JUDGE ELLURU: I'll put the
` parties on hold while I confer with the
` Panel. Thank you.
` (Whereupon, a discussion is held
` off the record.)
` JUDGE ELLURU: Okay. Is counsel
` for Petitioner present?
` MR. RENNER: Yes.
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`14
`
`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
`
` JUDGE ELLURU: And counsel for
` Smartflash?
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: The Panel has
` conferred and has decided that there is
` no threshold level of consistency here.
` To the extent that Petitioner has
` allegedly made an inconsistent
` statement, the Patent Owner is in
` possession of that evidence, and we are
` persuaded at this point that routine
` discovery is self-executing.
` MR. CASEY: Your Honor, this is
` Michael Casey. I'm sorry. As I
` understand it, you're saying because
` the Patent Owner has it in one form and
` it's covered by Protective Orders and
` can't be used in this proceeding that
` you are still holding that against
` Patent Owner.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Mr. Casey, what
` I'm saying is to the extent you're
` saying that there is an inconsistency,
` which we don't believe at this point,
` the inconsistency is only that
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`15
`
`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
`
` Petitioner has made that statement,
` that they have -- that their products
` are non-infringing and that they're a
` non-infringing alternative.
` Do you have that -- you clearly
` brought that to our attention, that
` statement, that Petitioner has made
` that statement in the District Court.
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: To the extent that
` you're saying that the underlying
` evidence is inconsistent with their
` position they're taking here, we're not
` convinced of that at this point.
` MR. CASEY: But I can't give you
` the breadth of their statements because
` I'm not allowed to see the breadth of
` their statements, your Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: But you haven't
` convinced us of any inconsistency is
` being withheld.
` MR. CASEY: But, your Honor, I
` can't do any more than say they have --
` they have admitted that there are
` non-infringing alternatives, but I
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`16
`
`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
`
` can't give you what they are because
` it's being withheld even from me under
` a Protective Order. So I can't -- I'm
` in a Catch 22 position where I can't
` give you the proof that you need to
` have me draft this motion beyond that
` the statements exist. I can certainly
` read to you from transcripts, where
` they say that they're non-infringing
` alternatives but I can't tell you what
` the non-infringing alternatives are.
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, if I
` may?
` JUDGE ELLURU: Yes, please.
` MR. RENNER: Two items I just
` want to point out. I believe this is
` consistent with what we've seen in
` Garmin, that there is a backdoor to
` discovery positions which would be wide
` open if the discovery request were
` reconsidered by your Honors and
` approved and we look to the authority
` on CBM2014 00008, 44, at page 3, where
` we -- I'll quote as follows, "As the
` Patent Owner representatives has
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`17
`
`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
`
` produced all routine discovery
` required, and Petitioner cites nothing
` to the contrary, Petitioner's
` speculation that the materials could
` have been inconsistent and could have
` inconsistent information is not
` sufficient."
` We believe that is the scenario
` you are faced with here, we're all
` faced with here that we have -- we have
` no evidence that would compel further
` discovery and it seems quite
` inconsistent with the nature of the
` rules that are put in place to govern
` discovery in disputes that open a door
` that will be opened, as requested.
` MR. CASEY: Your Honor, in the
` litigation the Samsung was required
` under a motion to compel to disclose
` this information.
` So this call is not -- all of
` the information, it's not all of the
` documents. It's not the motion itself.
` This is the request to file the motion.
` I guess my question is, what is
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`18
`
`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
`
` the harm in allowing Patent Owner to
` file the motion, if what we are forced
` to have instead is a position where the
` Petitioner gets to decide whether or
` not the statements are inconsistent.
` The reality is that Petitioner knows
` that Petitioner has made non-infringing
` alternative arguments.
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, if I
` may.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Yes, please.
` MR. RENNER: And I think your
` Honor has admitted into -- that fact,
` if you will, that Mr. Casey has brought
` forward that apparently
` non-infringement positions have been
` tendered in a co-pending litigation. I
` think that's -- that your Honor has
` already heard that and I believe that's
` a broader scope of discovery here.
` Again, I think it would be
` inconsistent with the rules that govern
` discovery and what we're trying to
` accomplish in these proceedings. The
` harm would be the inefficiency if they
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`19
`
`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
`
` come into these proceedings and we open
` the door and it is a wide open door
` once this kind of argument -- I imagine
` that any time preemption is alleged
` you'd have a backdoor into
` non-infringement positions if this were
` a petition that were honored.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Mr. Casey, we
` agree. The specifics alleged in the
` non-infringing alternatives are not
` relevant to the 101 issue. Whether the
` non-infringing products are or not a
` non-infringing alternative, that we
` don't believe that is an inconsistent
` statement with patentability under 101
` and we don't -- and you haven't pointed
` us to any authority that the
` non-infringing products are relevant to
` 101.
` So we are going to move on to
` the second issue, which is the motion
` to stay the proceedings in light of the
` District Court decision. Mr. Casey,
` could you speak to that, please?
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor. The
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`20
`
`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
`
` Court -- the District Court in Texas
` has already ruled on the 101 issue and
` it has -- there was a report
` recommendation by the Magistrate Judge,
` which was accepted by Judge Gilstrap
` back in February and so, Samsung is due
` to go to trial in August with
` Smartflash, and we don't believe that
` it is a proper use of the Court's --
` PTAB's resources to relitigate an issue
` that is already lost below in the
` District Court and therefore, we would
` ask that the proceeding be stayed long
` enough to allow the case to go forward
` and the final judgment to be entered at
` the District Court level.
` JUDGE ELLURU: And can you point
` us to any authority that would allow us
` to do that?
` MR. CASEY: Your Honor, it would
` be, the main issue is that of speedy
` and efficient and inexpensive judgment,
` against the proceedings in this case
` which is the main -- the main
` regulation that's involved. So this --
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`21
`
`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
`
` yes, I can give you. It's 3017, 42.1
` (sic) which is, partially construed, to
` secure the speedy and inexpensive
` resolution of a proceeding. If we have
` to litigate this in multiple forums,
` when the District Court has already
` ruled on this issue, it will definitely
` not be -- it will definitely not be
` inexpensive and it won't be just.
` JUDGE ELLURU: And how does that
` stump our directive to finish these
` proceedings within one year upon
` institution?
` MR. CASEY: Well, your Honor, I
` think it would create good cause, and
` I'm not sure that it will actually go
` outside of the one year. We -- if the
` trial is in August and we reached our
` proceeding this October we can still
` finish within the year.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Within a year of
` the time we institute again?
` MR. CASEY: No. Even within the
` time that you -- the initial 12 months,
` plus there is always the possibility of
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`22
`
`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
`
` an extension of six months for good
` cause.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Mr. Renner, would
` you like to respond?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` Thank you. You know, we point out that
` the position made in District Court was
` a summary judgment decision, first of
` all, not a final decision. It's not
` been appealed, upheld or otherwise
` maintained by anyone other than the
` District Court Judge without the
` benefit of full fact finding. And your
` Honor, we also submit that is under a
` different claim construction. It's not
` in any way inconsistent with the rules
` that this is pending before the PTAB
` and your Honors, and it is very much,
` in fact, what I think it was intended
` by Congress that we could bring,
` challenge it fully and have them fully
` vetted here before an audience that is
` designed to really address
` patentability, unlike a District Court
` in many ways. And while so, we would
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`23
`
`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
`
` think it to be quite unusual at a first
` ever that you would have a stay of a
` proceeding here in favor of a District
` Court, not even final decision, and
` that would be pretty remarkable.
` JUDGE ELLURU: I'll put the
` parties on hold while I confer with the
` Panel. Thank you.
` (Whereupon, a discussion is held
` off the record.)
` JUDGE ELLURU: The Panel has
` conferred. Is counsel for Petitioner
` present?
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: And counsel for
` Patent Owner?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: The Panel has
` decided that we don't see a
` justification for a stay given our
` statutory directive to finish these
` files within one year, given that the
` parties can't control the timing of the
` District Court files and already
` subject to an appeal, we're not
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`24
`
`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
`
` persuaded it could be resolved within
` the statutory deadline if we were to
` stay, and including if we were to
` extend the deadline by six months.
` And the next issue brought by
` Patent Owner is extending the schedule
` so that we may decide the CBM2014 00200
` 204 request for rehearings.
` Would you speaker to that,
` Mr. Casey.
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor. I'm
` just trying to make sure we don't have
` to depose the Declarant more than once.
` The current deadline for the one is
` June 1st and if the PTAB were to go
` ahead and institute either 200 or 204,
` which Patent Owner doesn't believe
` should happen, but if that were to
` happen we want to make sure we don't
` have to -- and resources in order to
` depose the witness more than once.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Has that
` deposition been scheduled?
` MR. CASEY: Yes, your Honor.
` It's tentatively been scheduled for May
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`25
`
`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
`
` 19 and May 20th. So coming right up.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Mr. Renner, would
` you like to respond?
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, if I'm
` understanding the issue before us
` correctly, it's a decision I think
` between moving the dates that are
` relating to five of the petitions,
` which end October 29th, oral argument.
` Those dates and the date of the -- one
` position 2015, which is a November 9th
` date.
` JUDGE ELLURU: No. I think we're
` actually talking about this Patent
` Owner's request at the bottom of page
` 3, to extend the schedule for due
` dates, given the request for a hearing
` in the 200, 204 case.
` MR. RENNER: Oh, my apologies.
` Thank you, your Honor. I was a little
` confused when Mr. Casey was talking.
` Thank you. Let me repivot for a moment,
` if I could.
` As to the proceedings for 200
` and 204 those relate to different
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`26
`
`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
`
` patents. As you may know, there are
` similar parties, where certainly the
` expert is the same, but it is a
` different patent and it's a different
` party altogether, we'd be willing to
` offer him earlier, if that's helpful,
` but I don't -- I don't think we're
` inclined to slow the proceeding down in
` order to allow everything to lag to
` those two. It doesn't seem like that
` is in the interest of speed and what
` we're trying to achieve here with the
` efficiency.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Is there anything
` else you'd like to add, Mr. Casey?
` MR. CASEY: Just, your Honor,
` that all the other cases have already
` had the deposition consolidated, and I
` think the speed and efficiency
` definitely point towards doing the
` deposition only once.
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, if I
` may, what I'm suggesting is we just do
` it once at the earlier date, rather
` than the later date. And if --you know,
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`27
`
`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
`
` obviously, we don't want to see things
` split. Timing is important in this
` case and we'd like to keep the
` schedule. That is all.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Thank you. I'll
` put the parties on hold. Mr. Casey, I
` didn't mean to interrupt, do you have
` anything to add?
` MR. CASEY: Yes. I guess I'm
` trying to understand Mr. Renner's
` position. I guess he's saying that I
` have to take the deposition of
` Mr. Bloom, he would propose I take the
` deposition of Mr. Bloom on cases that
` haven't even been instituted yet, and
` that doesn't seem to make sense.
` The only way to do it earlier
` would be to -- would be to take his
` deposition before we knew if 200 and
` 204 were going to be instituted, which
` doesn't make any sense.
` MR. RENNER: If I may, your
` Honor.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Briefly, please.
` MR. RENNER: Sure. I think
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`28
`
`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
`
` Mr. Casey makes a good point, and I'd
` like to address it by saying the
` following: We don't know what the
` Panel is going to do with the rehearing
` request. It seems a greater concern if
` it we were stalling depositions that
` aren't currently scheduled, that are
` able to be taken in view of things we
` don't know yet to come.
` If we learn that the -- those
` cases were to institute quickly we
` would certainly be open to revisiting
` this and talking about it, but at
` present we don't have information that
` would suggest that point actually
` gaining anyone anything.
` JUDGE ELLURU: Thank you. The
` Panel has decided that we are going to
` move ahead with the schedule. We will
` strive to resolve those requests for
` rehearings by as early as possible, and
` to the extent we do end up instituting
` those cases we'll revisit the schedule
` at that time.
` The next item on Patent Owner
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`
`
`29
`
`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
`
` list is the coordination of other
` proceedings.
` Mr. Casey, what is your specific
` request at this time?
` MR. CASEY: Your Honor, I just
` wanted to make sure that you knew that
` these cases were both out there and
` they have very close but not
` overlapping schedules and the -- I
` wanted to make sure that it didn't come
` as a surprise that Patent Owner is
` still considering whether or not it
` wishes to try to consolidate the
` schedules of 15 to 18 and whether or
` not it needs to request that, but it's
` still within the months of those having
` been instituted.
` So I just wanted to make sure
` that the Board was aware that these
` cases exist, but they're not scheduled
` at the same time, which potentially
` m
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
