throbber
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
`
`Page 1
`
` - - -
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` - - -
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` - - -
` IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., TRADESTATION SECURITIES,
` INC., TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and IBFX,
` INC.,
` Petitioners,
` v.
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
` - - -
` CBM2015-00161 (Patent No. 6,766,304 B2)
` CBM2015-00172 (Patent No. 7,783,556)
` CBM2015-00179 (Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
` CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411 B2)
` CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 6,772,132 B1)
` - - -
` July 15, 2016 - 9:00 a.m.
` - - -
` TELECONFERENCE IN THE ABOVE MATTER
` BEFORE: JEREMY M. PLENZLER
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK
` SALLY C. MEDLEY
` Administrative Patent Judges
`
` - - -
`
` VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY
` MID-ATLANTIC REGION
` 1250 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1201
` Washington, DC 20005
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 1 of 38
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2335
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00179
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.
` BY: ROBERT E. SOKOHL, ESQUIRE
` LORI A. GORDON, ESQUIRE
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQUIRE
` 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
` 202-371-2600
` rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
` lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
` rbemben-ptab@skgf.com
` and
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` BY: ADAM J. KESSEL, ESQUIRE
` One Marina Park Drive
` Boston, MA 02210-1878
` 617-368-2180
` kessel@fr.com
` Representing the Petitioners
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
` BY: RACHEL L. EMSLEY, ESQUIRE
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, MA 02210-2001
` 617-646-1600
` rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
` and
` BY: ERIKA HARMON ARNER, ESQUIRE
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, VA 20190-5675
` 571-203-2754
` erika.arner@finnegan.com
` Representing the Patent Owner
`
` - - -
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 2 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 3
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Good morning. This
`
`is Judge Plenzler at the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board. This is the conference call for
`
`CBM2015-00161, '172, '179, '181, and '182. I'm
`
`joined on the call by Judges Medley and Petravick.
`
` Do we have someone on the call for
`
`Petitioner?
`
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor. This
`
`is Rob Sokohl and with me today is Lori Gordon,
`
`Richard Bemben, and Adam Kessel.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. Thank
`
`you.
`
` And for Patent Owner?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: For Patent Owner, this
`
`is Rachel Emsley, and with me on the call is Erica
`
`Arner.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. Thank
`
`you.
`
` And is there a court reporter?
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: There is, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right.
`
` And I assume that's Patent Owner's
`
`court reporter?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: That's correct.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 3 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 4
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. And I'm
`
`sure by now you're familiar with the procedure for
`
`getting that in the record, so I won't go over the
`
`details.
`
` Patent Owner requested this call, it
`
`looks like, to discuss a request to file an offer of
`
`proof, so we're going to hear from them first.
`
` But before we do, I would just like a
`
`little background information, just to clarify the
`
`whole procedure for how this all came about,
`
`primarily with respect to the request and the grant
`
`of relief from the District Court for the protective
`
`order.
`
` If you could just explain, just very
`
`briefly, the timeline as far as, you know, when you
`
`received the information that the District Court has
`
`now given you relief to use, when you requested
`
`permission to use it, and then when the District
`
`Court ultimately granted that relief, that would be
`
`appreciated.
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes, Your Honor. This
`
`is Rachel Emsley. I need to look at the exact
`
`filings in the District Court. But when the Board
`
`denied TT's motion for additional discovery, the
`
`Board noted that the District Court could authorize
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 4 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 5
`
`the Patent Owner to use the District Court discovery
`
`in these proceedings, that discovery being subject
`
`to the District Court's protective order, as you
`
`know.
`
` So following that denial of
`
`additional discovery, Trading Technologies filed a
`
`motion with the District Court for relief from the
`
`protective order so that we could submit the
`
`documents themselves in an offer of proof, getting
`
`relief from the protective order.
`
` So on July 13th the District Court
`
`entered an order that adopts the District Court's
`
`ruling as stated in open court in a hearing on
`
`July 7th. So both parties were represented at that
`
`hearing.
`
` The District Court therefore granted
`
`permission for TT to submit the documents and
`
`transcripts identified in the motion for additional
`
`discovery, and that's the same discovery that the
`
`District Court previously granted despite the stay
`
`because of its potential relevance to this PTAB
`
`proceeding. And this was specific for the offer of
`
`proof in the PTAB.
`
` So I'm not sure exactly the date that
`
`that was filed. I need to look back at that for a
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 5 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 6
`
`moment, if you don't mind.
`
` MR. KESSEL: Your Honor, I could fill
`
`in the timeline -- this is Adam Kessel -- if you
`
`would like.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Sure.
`
` MR. KESSEL: So there were two
`
`motions to modify the protective order in the
`
`District Court. The first was filed on June 13th
`
`and that one was withdrawn by the Patent Owner.
`
` That was the motion relating to
`
`providing a set of documents that were confidential
`
`for the purposes of the motion for additional
`
`discovery. And immediately after the Patent Owner
`
`filed that motion for relief, we agreed that they
`
`could use a handful of documents for the motion for
`
`additional discovery, so the motion was withdrawn on
`
`June 14th.
`
` Then there was a second motion to
`
`modify the protective order for the purpose of this
`
`offer of proof and that was filed on July 1st, and
`
`we actually offered as well to stipulate that they
`
`could use some of the documents just for the purpose
`
`of seeking to make the offer of proof.
`
` We went to Court instead and the
`
`Court allowed the protective order to be modified
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 6 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 7
`
`for the purpose of allowing TT to make this motion
`
`on July 7th.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. Thank you.
`
` So the protective order, the relief
`
`is just for this offer of proof then; is that
`
`correct?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes, that's correct.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. And I guess
`
`if you could help me out, Ms. Emsley, just an
`
`initial question: What exactly are you looking to
`
`get out of -- I guess why do you need to file this
`
`offer of proof? If you could just explain generally
`
`first, and then we can get into some more details.
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Sure. We are seeking
`
`authorization to submit the offer of proof under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2) to submit the
`
`evidence denied in the Patent Owner's motion for
`
`additional discovery because this is the mechanism
`
`that the Federal Rules of Evidence provide to us to
`
`preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal.
`
` So for us, if it's necessary to argue
`
`on appeal that this evidence was excluded from the
`
`proceeding in error, this offer of proof would be
`
`used by the Federal Circuit to determine whether
`
`there was an error made.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 7 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 8
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: But it sounds like
`
`you just said you want to use the offer of proof to
`
`bring the evidence in. So you'd want to file the
`
`evidence; is that a correct understanding?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes. The filing that
`
`we're proposing would consist of a simple cover
`
`sheet, case caption page, stating that this is an
`
`offer of proof, the nonconfidential description of
`
`the documents that TT submitted to the District
`
`Court, and the documents themselves as exhibits with
`
`a motion to seal.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Right. And you also
`
`mentioned that, you know, it's based on a ruling
`
`that excluded evidence here. I guess where did we
`
`exclude that evidence?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Well, that evidence is
`
`excluded by virtue of the fact that we were denied
`
`the additional discovery in this proceeding. So at
`
`present our Patent Owner responses are filed and the
`
`relief that we sought to get the documents in to the
`
`PTAB as additional discovery so we could use them in
`
`our arguments was denied in the additional discovery
`
`motion.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: So aren't you
`
`basically saying that we abused our discretion in
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 8 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 9
`
`denying the motion for additional discovery? I'm
`
`just wondering why these exhibits would be filed and
`
`what that would mean for us. I mean, how would we
`
`use them? Like you said, you have your Patent Owner
`
`response filed already; right? So if these exhibits
`
`come in and they're filed, what does that do for us
`
`in the record here? How does that affect the case?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: It does not affect the
`
`case from your perspective. I mean, I think there's
`
`certainly the ability for you to look at them,
`
`although in the past I know that the PTAB, a board,
`
`at least one board, has allowed an offer of proof
`
`and noted that they will not use that material in
`
`making their final determination.
`
` And so we are not expecting that the
`
`Board will consider this evidence. We're not asking
`
`the Board to consider the documents. We understand
`
`that you might not view them at all. We seek only
`
`to preserve the evidentiary issue as prescribed by
`
`the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: And which case are
`
`you referencing where a panel has allowed that offer
`
`of proof?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: It was not this panel,
`
`to be clear. The case number for that is IPR --
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 9 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 10
`
`it's an IPR -- 2014-'209. And in that case a party
`
`was allowed to make an offer of proof on record
`
`during an oral hearing, which was when they actually
`
`made that request. It appears that that's the first
`
`time their request was made. And they did so at the
`
`oral hearing.
`
` And in that transcript -- it's Paper
`
`51 in that proceeding, the date is April 3rd,
`
`2015 -- the Board said that they would not consider
`
`the evidence, but they allowed the offer of proof to
`
`be made.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. Do you have
`
`anything else to add before I give Petitioner an
`
`opportunity to respond?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes, Your Honor. So I'm
`
`jumping around a little bit, but we're aware that
`
`the Federal Circuit has relied on offers of proof in
`
`the past, at least when considering nonobviousness,
`
`and we feel that without the offer of proof, the
`
`evidentiary issue may not be properly preserved for
`
`appeal and that's a risk that prejudices TT if we're
`
`not allowed to make this offer of proof.
`
` The District Court in the hearing
`
`understood the difficulty for the PTAB to adjudge
`
`the relevance based on the simple statements that we
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 10 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 11
`
`were able to make in our motion for additional
`
`discovery; and in the hearing on July 7th, when she
`
`considered this issue, the District Court
`
`underscored the necessity for the PTAB to have all
`
`material relevant information.
`
` So we feel that an offer of proof is
`
`appropriate here because the evidence has been
`
`excluded and should be authorized because these
`
`proceedings are applying the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence under 37 CFR 42.62.
`
` We're not aware of any case where a
`
`trial court has properly refused an offer of proof
`
`when evidence has been excluded; and the same holds
`
`true for the PTAB, as far as we can see, that when
`
`evidence has been excluded, an offer of proof has
`
`been granted, although so far it's only been in one
`
`case.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: And just so I
`
`understand, I guess maybe you mentioned it and I
`
`missed it, but why is it necessary to preserve this
`
`issue for appeal? Why does the Federal Circuit
`
`require that you have this offer of proof? I know
`
`you mentioned that it's necessary, you know, to
`
`preserve the issue for appeal. I mean, why can't
`
`you argue that we just -- because it seems ultimate
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 11 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 12
`
`abuse of discretion for denying a motion for
`
`additional discovery. Is that a correct
`
`understanding?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes. But there's now
`
`been a development where the District Court has
`
`enabled us to put in the documents themselves, and
`
`because of the confidentiality issue the PTAB didn't
`
`have all of the material to make its determination.
`
`So the only way to adjudicate whether the ruling to
`
`exclude the documents was in error is with the
`
`documents themselves.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Right. I mean, I
`
`guess there's really nothing where things were
`
`technically excluded; right? I mean, this is just a
`
`denial of a motion for additional discovery that
`
`we're talking about; correct?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: In our view that's an
`
`exclusion of the evidence. I think certainly on
`
`appeal they could say that that isn't an exclusion
`
`of the evidence. But the evidence was sought to be
`
`entered into this proceeding and was denied entry.
`
`Not on a motion to exclude, per se, but the effect
`
`is the same.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. And I know
`
`you mentioned the District Court said the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 12 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 13
`
`information was necessary to the PTAB proceeding.
`
`Did they say why it's necessary to the PTAB
`
`proceeding?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: I think that discussion
`
`wasn't had at the District Court. I wasn't in the
`
`proceeding, but I've read the transcript. It
`
`appears that, you know, there wasn't a lot of time
`
`spent by the Court in that hearing. So that wasn't
`
`discussed exactly.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: And I guess, you
`
`know, if we're talking about filing the actual
`
`evidence itself, right, why isn't that supplemental
`
`information?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Well, because it
`
`wouldn't be considered by the Board. It's only in
`
`the record for consideration by the Federal Circuit
`
`to decide whether the evidence was excluded in
`
`error.
`
` And so if they make that
`
`determination, then I imagine that the case would be
`
`remanded so that the PTAB could review that
`
`evidence. But it isn't supplemental information to
`
`what we put in our Patent Owner response because the
`
`Board isn't going to consider it.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 13 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 14
`
` All right. And I guess you mentioned
`
`that the District Court granted relief for the offer
`
`of proof. I guess why aren't you just in general
`
`not allowed to use it in this proceeding other than,
`
`right, giving the offer of proof?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Why are we not
`
`allowed --
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Yeah. Why is this
`
`limited by the District Court for the offer of
`
`proof?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Well, because Your
`
`Honors have denied the additional discovery in the
`
`PTAB.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: But, I mean, are you
`
`saying the District Court would have let it in, they
`
`would have given you the relief to use it if this
`
`would have been done in time, right, if it would
`
`have been done before Patent Owner --
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Well, I don't know what
`
`the result would have been. You know, we
`
`came before -- you know, these are documents that
`
`were subject to the protective order and it's not --
`
`these aren't third-party confidential documents.
`
`This is confidentiality that's controlled by the
`
`Petitioners.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 14 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 15
`
` And so, you know, the issue of
`
`whether the documents can be -- the protective order
`
`modification and the use of these documents is in
`
`the control of the Petitioners.
`
` And we came to the PTAB with what we
`
`thought was sound reasons for asking for the
`
`additional discovery in the PTAB, relief that should
`
`have been able to be granted by this Board. And so
`
`the necessity of going to the District Court for
`
`that, you know, we felt that this venue was the
`
`place for that request.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Okay. I guess do
`
`you have anything further to add before I hear from
`
`Petitioner?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: No, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right.
`
` I think Judge Petravick might have a
`
`question. So I'll give her a minute if she wants to
`
`come on and ask you something.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes. Hello. This
`
`is Judge Petravick. My question is if you went to
`
`the District Court Judge and the District Court
`
`Judge has the authority over that protective order,
`
`that's the only thing that's preventing your from
`
`using this evidence in the PTAB trial, and we don't
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 15 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 16
`
`have any authority over the District Court's
`
`protective order, why is the District Court only
`
`letting -- why didn't you just ask the District
`
`Court to modify the protective order in light for
`
`the offer of proof? Why didn't you ask the District
`
`Court to just, in general, modify the protective
`
`order to let all the information in? -- because you
`
`keep telling me that it's the Petitioners that's in
`
`control, but yet you went to the District Court
`
`Judge to ask. I'm assuming the District Court Judge
`
`had the power to modify the protective order, in
`
`general, to let the information in. I mean, you
`
`possess this information.
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes. So there were two
`
`requests made to the District Court with the motion.
`
`Litigation counsel did ask for relief generally to
`
`have all of the discovery available, you know, going
`
`forward, because now our Patent Owner responses are
`
`in and we don't have the opportunity to use that
`
`evidence.
`
` But there was the request made
`
`limited for the offer of proof, and that's the one
`
`that the District Court felt was appropriate here;
`
`and that if we need relief in the future for future
`
`proceedings to use documents, that we could come
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 16 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 17
`
`back and ask for relief.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So in the June 13th
`
`motion that was withdrawn by you, were you asking
`
`for the District Court to lift its protective order,
`
`in general, so that you could use the information in
`
`your Patent Owner's response?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: We were actually asking
`
`for the District Court to allow us to use -- you
`
`know what? I have not reviewed that motion. I
`
`don't want to speak out of turn on what that said.
`
`If you'd like me to review it, I can go back and
`
`look at that.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So it seems to me
`
`that the facts of this case actually are that the
`
`only thing that's preventing you from using this
`
`evidence in this proceeding is not the PTAB, it's
`
`the District Court protective order, and it seems
`
`like you've gone twice to the District Court to ask
`
`them to lift that protective order.
`
` If you had filed this information
`
`with your Patent Owner response, the Board does not
`
`enforce or not enforce District Court protective
`
`orders. So, you know, that would be a thing between
`
`you and the District Court; not between you and the
`
`Board.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 17 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 18
`
` So my question is: Why didn't you
`
`go -- or basically what I would like to know is:
`
`Have you gone to the District Court to ask for its
`
`general relief or why haven't you?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: I believe that that
`
`request was made to the District Court but that we
`
`were in the process of making our motion for
`
`additional discovery because it was our
`
`understanding that in the past the Board, even in
`
`view of District Court protective orders, has
`
`granted additional discovery of protected documents
`
`based on the advice of litigation counsel that the
`
`documents were relevant to things like secondary
`
`considerations. And so there was solid ground for
`
`believing that the PTAB was the place to ask for
`
`this relief.
`
` And the motion that was previously
`
`before the District Court, you know, we were granted
`
`the motion for additional discovery and had a very
`
`quick time to prepare our motion; and in that time
`
`it's my understanding that Petitioners reached out
`
`to Patent Owner and offered a small set of documents
`
`for use in the additional discovery in exchange for
`
`foregoing the relief in the District Court, which
`
`was going to require a hearing that next day. And
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 18 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 19
`
`so that's what happened with that motion, to my
`
`recollection.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And so the second
`
`time you went to the District Court for the relief
`
`from the protective order for the offer of proof and
`
`for just generally submitting the information at the
`
`PTAB, and the District Court denied you relief from
`
`the protective order for generally submitting the
`
`information at the PTAB.
`
` MS. EMSLEY: That's correct.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. I just
`
`wanted to make sure that that was clear.
`
` MS. ARNER: I'm sorry; just to be
`
`accurate, she deferred that second request. I'm
`
`sorry; this is Erica Arner. She granted the offer
`
`of proof permission and said for the second request,
`
`the more general use of the documents, come back to
`
`me on the specific documents. So she granted the
`
`first and then said that she would entertain the
`
`other at a later time.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So at this later
`
`time, if they relieve you from the protective order,
`
`then you have the evidence. There's really nothing
`
`preventing you from submitting them in the case.
`
` MS. ARNER: Well, the denial of the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 19 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 20
`
`additional discovery motion prevents it in these
`
`five cases.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: If you possessed
`
`the information, why would it deny you from putting
`
`it in this case?
`
` MS. ARNER: Well, our response is
`
`done; right?
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, there are
`
`other ways under our rules to offer information.
`
` MS. ARNER: I think we view the
`
`denial of the additional discovery motion as the
`
`answer to that request.
`
` I'll cede it back to Ms. Emsley. I
`
`just wanted to correct that one thing.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So why, if the
`
`District Court gives you relief from the protective
`
`order, can't you submit this information into the
`
`PTAB?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: I'm sorry; could you say
`
`that question again?
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Why, if the
`
`District Court releases you from the protective
`
`order, can't you submit this information into the
`
`PTAB under our other rules?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: What other rule? I'm
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 20 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 21
`
`not sure I --
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: As supplemental
`
`information, a request for supplemental
`
`briefing/supplemental information.
`
` MS. EMSLEY: I mean, our
`
`understanding from the denial of additional
`
`discovery is that this information was not adjudged
`
`to be appropriate in this proceeding or allowed in
`
`this proceeding, and so you're telling us that now
`
`if we go to the District Court --
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I believe what the
`
`additional discovery motion said is that you didn't
`
`meet the requirements for additional discovery. You
`
`have possession of this information; is that
`
`correct? TT has possession of this information.
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes, they do.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And so if you have
`
`possession of the information, the only thing that's
`
`preventing you from using it is the District Court
`
`protective order; is that correct?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes. Alternatively,
`
`though, the Petitioners, whose confidential
`
`information it is, could say that this is produced
`
`now in the PTAB under the PTAB protective order.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, so they
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 21 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 22
`
`haven't yet even objected to the admissibility of
`
`this evidence in this PTAB proceeding; is that
`
`correct?
`
` MS. ARNER: Yes, they did in that
`
`denial, in their opposition.
`
` All right. Never mind.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: When have you
`
`offered this evidence into this PTAB trial?
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Well, we weren't able to
`
`offer that evidence. You know, our understanding is
`
`that we had to come to you to ask for additional
`
`discovery in order to offer this evidence.
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. I think
`
`I understand what you're trying to do here. Thank
`
`you.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: Can I just put you
`
`guys on hold for one second? I just want to confer
`
`with my panel very briefly and we'll be right back
`
`online. All right?
`
` - - -
`
` (Whereupon there was a recess in the
`
`proceedings.)
`
` - - -
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. This is
`
`Judge Plenzler. I'm back on the call with Judges
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 22 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 23
`
`Medley and Petravick.
`
` I assume we still have counsel for
`
`the parties on the line?
`
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE PLENZLER: All right. I guess
`
`if we could hear from Petitioner, if you have a
`
`response to what Patent Owner has explained here.
`
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure, Your Honor. This
`
`is Rob Sokohl. A few things.
`
` First, you know, an offer of proof
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 103, as you pointed
`
`out, permits the parties to file an offer of proof
`
`to preserve an error in an evidentiary ruling.
`
` There has been no evidentiary ruling
`
`in this case. You have merely denied their request
`
`for additional discovery. And here the request was
`
`denied for procedural and substantive reasons and
`
`the Board reasoned there that Patent Owner did not
`
`satisfy the Garmin and Bloomberg factors.
`
` Now, a denial of discovery is not the
`
`same as exclusion of evidence. So we disagree with
`
`the Patent Owner. So an offer of proof is just not
`
`the appropriate vehicle here.
`
` Rather, I believe, as you pointed
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 23 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 24
`
`out, Judge Petravick, probably the proper course of
`
`action would have been a request for reconsideration
`
`for abuse of discretion or something along those
`
`lines, but not an offer of proof.
`
` Further, this request is untimely.
`
`It's a not-so-subtle attempt to try to add materials
`
`to this proceeding. There are replies in all five
`
`proceedings that have been filed. Patent Owner
`
`filed them on June 27th. It had an opportunity to
`
`acknowledge all the issues they're talking about
`
`prior to filing their replies and did not.
`
` In fact, they obtained an extension
`
`for this very purpose, and yet they still didn't
`
`file these documents or get the appropriate ruling
`
`from the District Court in a timely fashion.
`
` So it is just improper at this point
`
`to allow them to file these additional documents.
`
`They have, I believe, 90-plus documents on their
`
`list that total over 600 pages, not including
`
`transcripts, and it would be inappropriate to flood
`
`the proceeding with additional documents that
`
`haven't even been presented in their reply. And at
`
`this point we would ask that the Board not allow
`
`them to enter these documents and their offer of
`
`proof.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Page 24 of 38
`
`

`
`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
`
`Page 25
`
` Just quickly, in regard to the
`
`District Court, I believe counsel for Patent Owner
`
`got it mostly correct. I would like to just turn it
`
`over quickly to Adam Kessel, who is litigati

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket