throbber
967
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Norfolk Division
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`2:15cv478
`
`))))))))))))
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and
`KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
`ASSOCIATION,
`Defendant.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`Day 5 (Afternoon session)
`Norfolk, Virginia
`April 24, 2017
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE ROBERT G. DOUMAR
`United States District Judge
`
`APPEARANCES:
`MEI & MARK LLP
`By: Krystyna Colantoni
`Irene H. Chen
`Reece Nienstadt
`Laurence Sandell
`Lei Mei
`Jeff Pearson
`Counsel for the Plaintiffs
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`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
`
` 1
`
`USAA 1072
`USAA v Asghari-Kamrani
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`

`

`968
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`By: Ahmed J. Davis
`Michael T. Zoppo
`Matthew C. Berntsen
`Counsel for the Defendants
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`2
`
`

`

`969
`
`(Luncheon recess from 12:30 to 1:31 p.m.)
`THE COURT: All right. Who's going to argue?
`MR. DAVIS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mr. Zoppo
`is going to begin with Mr. Tadayon.
`THE COURT: What points is Mr. Zoppo going to
`
`argue?
`
`MR. DAVIS: He's going to argue the points
`specifically as it relates to Mr. Tadayon, Mr. Nader
`Asghari-Kamrani, and Mr. Kim.
`THE COURT: Who are you going to argue?
`MR. DAVIS: I'm going to argue Mr. Kamran
`Asghari-Kamrani, Mr. Fortkort, and Mr. Nienstadt.
`THE COURT: Okay. Okay, Mr. Zoppo. You're on
`
`board.
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Thank you, Your Honor. Might I ask how
`much time we're allotted?
`THE COURT: Give you an hour.
`MR. ZOPPO: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Each get an hour, period.
`MR. ZOPPO: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ZOPPO: So we'll start with Dr. Bijan Tadayon,
`and Dr. Tadayon is who filed the application for the '432
`patent, and he is who made the priority claims in the '432
`patent. The question is whether those priority claims, as
`
`01:31:16PM
`
`01:31:19PM
`
`01:31:21PM
`
`01:31:25PM
`
`01:31:30PM
`
`01:31:32PM
`
`01:31:33PM
`
`01:31:35PM
`
`01:31:39PM
`
`01:31:41PM
`
`01:31:43PM
`
`01:31:45PM
`
`01:31:50PM
`
`01:31:54PM
`
`01:31:57PM
`
`01:32:09PM
`
`01:32:13PM
`
`01:32:23PM
`
`01:32:24PM
`
`01:32:26PM
`
`01:32:26PM
`
`01:32:28PM
`
`01:32:36PM
`
`01:32:43PM
`
`01:32:47PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`3
`
`

`

`970
`
`they were originally made, are they material and were they
`made with an intent to deceive. With respect to
`materiality, Mr. Pearson stated that there's no better prior
`art than the '837 patent, and that's a very important point,
`Your Honor. That's an important point because unless the
`plaintiffs are able to claim priority to the '837 patent,
`their patent is invalid.
`Okay. That's because the '837 patent has the same
`specification as the '432 patent. So if the '432 patent was
`in the public domain prior, a year prior to the filing date
`of the '432 patent, the patentees would never have been able
`to get the patent that's at issue in this case. That's what
`makes that material.
`THE COURT: Go over that again, Mr. Zoppo.
`MR. ZOPPO: Sure. It's an important point, Your
`Honor. The '837 patent published in 2003 as a published
`patent application, and it describes an invention.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. ZOPPO: And the '432 patent application was not
`filed until 2008, and that was several months after the '837
`patent issued, but also importantly, many years, several
`years after the '837 patent application became a
`publication, something public, something that the whole
`world then knew about, okay. Patent law does not allow you
`to get a patent on something the whole world knows about.
`
`01:32:54PM
`
`01:32:59PM
`
`01:33:03PM
`
`01:33:09PM
`
`01:33:13PM
`
`01:33:17PM
`
`01:33:23PM
`
`01:33:26PM
`
`01:33:30PM
`
`01:33:35PM
`
`01:33:40PM
`
`01:33:43PM
`
`01:33:47PM
`
`01:33:48PM
`
`01:33:53PM
`
`01:33:56PM
`
`01:34:03PM
`
`01:34:08PM
`
`01:34:10PM
`
`01:34:13PM
`
`01:34:18PM
`
`01:34:25PM
`
`01:34:30PM
`
`01:34:33PM
`
`01:34:40PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`4
`
`

`

`971
`
`It has to be something new. Okay.
`And because the '837 patent application was in the
`public domain more than a year before the '432 patent
`application was filed, it's what's called prior art. And
`prior art is what the patent examiners use to reject patent
`applications. Okay. And it may seem odd that the
`plaintiffs' own application can be used against them, but
`this is the law.
`If the patentees had voluntarily published their
`invention a year before they filed their patent application,
`the statute does not allow you to then apply for a patent on
`it.
`
`THE COURT: Prior art?
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes, Your Honor. That's exactly right.
`And the issue to keep in mind here is that Dr. Tadayon is
`not a newbie. He is a sophisticated practitioner. This is
`the gentleman I described in my opening statement as having
`gone to Georgetown and a Ph.D. from Cornell, and the
`pre-credentials go on and on, a former patent examiner.
`What's also important to report is the testimony
`that Mr. Nader Asghari-Kamrani gave at this trial, that it
`was their intention to file a continuation of the '837
`patent, and that he relied on Dr. Tadayon's testimony -- I'm
`sorry, on Dr. Tadayon's advice in doing so. I have a cite
`for that testimony. That's Page 394, lines 3 through 12.
`
`01:34:44PM
`
`01:34:48PM
`
`01:34:51PM
`
`01:34:56PM
`
`01:35:01PM
`
`01:35:05PM
`
`01:35:12PM
`
`01:35:16PM
`
`01:35:18PM
`
`01:35:21PM
`
`01:35:26PM
`
`01:35:30PM
`
`01:35:31PM
`
`01:35:33PM
`
`01:35:36PM
`
`01:35:43PM
`
`01:35:48PM
`
`01:35:50PM
`
`01:35:56PM
`
`01:36:00PM
`
`01:36:04PM
`
`01:36:09PM
`
`01:36:16PM
`
`01:36:22PM
`
`01:36:27PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`5
`
`

`

`972
`
`THE COURT: 394?
`MR. ZOPPO: Lines 3 through 12.
`THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let me read it.
`MR. ZOPPO: Sure. And we also discussed in this
`trial that -- well, the testimony here, Your Honor, is that
`Nader Asghari-Kamrani states, "What you wanted to do was add
`claims to that same specification and drawings of the '837
`patent, correct?"
`And the answer is, "We wanted to file continuation,
`and we received advice from the patent attorney."
`That's a problem because at that time, at the time
`the '432 patent was filed, the '837 patent had already
`issued, and as I discussed, if you recall, in my opening,
`this idea of a missed deadline in this case, and this missed
`deadline was the fact that the '837 patent issued five
`months before the '432 patent application was filed. What
`that means is you can't file a continuation of the '837.
`You had to have done that while that application was still
`pending as a patent application.
`Now, there's been some testimony and some
`suggestion in this case that the CIP or the CON label is
`really just a label and nothing more, but we also received
`testimony that actually these labels mean something. The
`label of a continuation means there is no new subject
`matter. The label of a continuation-in-part means it does
`
`01:36:39PM
`
`01:36:42PM
`
`01:36:51PM
`
`01:36:54PM
`
`01:37:13PM
`
`01:37:18PM
`
`01:37:21PM
`
`01:37:26PM
`
`01:37:29PM
`
`01:37:32PM
`
`01:37:37PM
`
`01:37:41PM
`
`01:37:46PM
`
`01:37:51PM
`
`01:37:56PM
`
`01:38:01PM
`
`01:38:08PM
`
`01:38:12PM
`
`01:38:16PM
`
`01:38:20PM
`
`01:38:25PM
`
`01:38:37PM
`
`01:38:44PM
`
`01:38:51PM
`
`01:38:54PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`6
`
`

`

`973
`
`add subject matter.
`The problem here is that the patent applicants and
`Dr. Tadayon, what they told the patent office was that the
`'432 patent adds no new subject matter to the '676 patent or
`the '837 patent. There are two problems with that. The
`first is the '837 patent was already issued, and that's what
`we've spoken about. The other is they told the patent
`office that the '432 patent adds no different, no new
`subject matter to the '676 patent, but that's not true,
`either, because those specifications are very different,
`because it was called a continuation, which signals to the
`patent examiner that it's the same subject matter. The
`question of continuity of disclosure was never evaluated by
`the patent office. They never knew that they had to
`consider whether the '676 provides a written description for
`the claims.
`THE COURT: Why didn't they?
`MR. ZOPPO: They didn't because the '432 was called
`a continuation, and the definition of a continuation is that
`there is no new matter. It's the same. So they were
`telling the patent office that this '432 and the '676 are
`the same, but they're not the same. The patent office
`didn't have a reason to consider that because --
`THE COURT: Why didn't the patent office examiner
`look it up, Mr. Zoppo?
`
`01:38:59PM
`
`01:39:02PM
`
`01:39:07PM
`
`01:39:12PM
`
`01:39:20PM
`
`01:39:23PM
`
`01:39:27PM
`
`01:39:30PM
`
`01:39:35PM
`
`01:39:40PM
`
`01:39:46PM
`
`01:39:50PM
`
`01:39:54PM
`
`01:39:59PM
`
`01:40:04PM
`
`01:40:08PM
`
`01:40:09PM
`
`01:40:10PM
`
`01:40:13PM
`
`01:40:18PM
`
`01:40:24PM
`
`01:40:28PM
`
`01:40:30PM
`
`01:40:33PM
`
`01:40:36PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`7
`
`

`

`974
`
`MR. ZOPPO: I can't answer what the patent examiner
`was thinking, but I can tell you that when we looked at the
`filing receipt of the '432 patent, the patent office
`accepted the priority claims as they were made, which was a
`continuation of the '676.
`So this is, again, a case where the patent office
`has to rely on representations that patent practitioners
`make, and you can see the acceptance of that in the filing
`receipt. Furthermore, we also saw, as evidence in this
`case, that USAA filed certain petitions called CBMRs, a
`post-grant procedure, and in those petitions USAA alerted
`the patent office to these issues that we're discussing at
`this trial, this priority issue.
`We argued, USAA argued to the patent office that
`the '676 patent can't be a link between the '432 and the
`'837 because it describes something different. Okay. And
`the patent office has found that USAA has made that showing
`by a preponderance of the evidence. It has instituted two
`trials on that point.
`I also do want to point out, and if we could bring
`up trial transcript 36616 through 36722. I do want to point
`out that this idea of the missed filing deadline, we
`believe, is an important one. I asked Nader about why
`didn't he file the '432 patent application while the '837
`was still pending in his deposition, and during the
`
`01:40:38PM
`
`01:40:43PM
`
`01:40:47PM
`
`01:40:52PM
`
`01:40:56PM
`
`01:41:01PM
`
`01:41:04PM
`
`01:41:09PM
`
`01:41:14PM
`
`01:41:20PM
`
`01:41:29PM
`
`01:41:35PM
`
`01:41:40PM
`
`01:41:43PM
`
`01:41:47PM
`
`01:41:53PM
`
`01:41:58PM
`
`01:42:03PM
`
`01:42:08PM
`
`01:42:11PM
`
`01:42:14PM
`
`01:42:29PM
`
`01:42:34PM
`
`01:42:41PM
`
`01:42:46PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`8
`
`

`

`975
`
`deposition he didn't have an answer for me. But you also
`see in the trial transcript, if you can bring up the --
`THE COURT: After looking it over, he comes up with
`a different answer?
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: What does he come up with?
`MR. ZOPPO: That answer has not come onto the
`record, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Did he ever answer the question?
`MR. ZOPPO: No, Your Honor. He just indicated that
`he came to a memory between his deposition and this trial.
`THE COURT: So you didn't ask him what was his
`current memory?
`MR. ZOPPO: No, I did not, Your Honor. I assumed
`that plaintiffs would ask him that.
`THE COURT: The question primarily with Tadayon is
`when he filed this, did he intend to deceive the patent
`office?
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Correct.
`THE COURT: What evidence is that he intended to
`deceive the patent office?
`MR. ZOPPO: Well, I think on the one hand the
`priority claims are so --
`THE COURT: Well, the priority claim isn't worth a
`
`darn.
`
`01:42:50PM
`
`01:42:54PM
`
`01:43:02PM
`
`01:43:06PM
`
`01:43:07PM
`
`01:43:08PM
`
`01:43:10PM
`
`01:43:13PM
`
`01:43:51PM
`
`01:43:54PM
`
`01:43:55PM
`
`01:44:07PM
`
`01:44:09PM
`
`01:44:10PM
`
`01:44:13PM
`
`01:44:32PM
`
`01:44:42PM
`
`01:44:46PM
`
`01:44:48PM
`
`01:44:48PM
`
`01:44:51PM
`
`01:44:53PM
`
`01:44:57PM
`
`01:45:00PM
`
`01:45:02PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`9
`
`

`

`976
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Correct.
`THE COURT: Okay. Assuming the priority claim is
`no good, why or how did he intend to deceive the patent
`office?
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Well, I think the intention to deceive
`arises because, as Nader Asghari-Kamrani testified, what
`they wanted to do was file a continuation of the '837
`patent. So what they wanted to do was circumvent the act
`that the '837 patent issued and, later in time, realized.
`THE COURT: Stop a minute. Why would they want
`that to have been done, Mr. Zoppo?
`MR. ZOPPO: Absolutely. It's very simple. If the
`'432 patent application had been filed while the '837 patent
`was still pending, we would not be here. Okay. There would
`not have been a single petition to amend a single priority
`claim in the '432 patent. The only reason we are all here
`is because the '432 application was not filed while the '837
`patent was pending.
`THE COURT: I assume that, and I'm assuming that.
`Now, Dr. Tadayon, you say, knew or did not know of the
`patenting application?
`MR. ZOPPO: No. Dr. Tadayon knew of the pending
`applications because he recited them in the priority claim.
`He identified them by number. So he must have known about
`them, Your Honor.
`
`01:45:03PM
`
`01:45:04PM
`
`01:45:07PM
`
`01:45:15PM
`
`01:45:17PM
`
`01:45:19PM
`
`01:45:25PM
`
`01:45:30PM
`
`01:45:34PM
`
`01:45:43PM
`
`01:45:49PM
`
`01:45:51PM
`
`01:45:55PM
`
`01:45:59PM
`
`01:46:05PM
`
`01:46:11PM
`
`01:46:22PM
`
`01:46:26PM
`
`01:46:28PM
`
`01:46:32PM
`
`01:46:38PM
`
`01:46:40PM
`
`01:46:43PM
`
`01:46:48PM
`
`01:46:52PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`10
`
`

`

`977
`
`THE COURT: Then how did he know that it was
`already granted?
`MR. ZOPPO: Because he identifies the '837 patent
`as an issued patent in the priority claim.
`THE COURT: So he identified the '837 patent as one
`already issued?
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: So that wasn't deception.
`MR. ZOPPO: He did call it a continuation of an
`issued patent, which is so beyond the pale.
`THE COURT: It was a continuation of the '676
`
`patent?
`
`MR. ZOPPO: It was a continuation of both, Your
`Honor, that's correct. That's correct. And, again, I'll
`remind Your Honor that the intention, the desire from the
`plaintiffs was to file a continuation of the '837 patent.
`And if they were able to accomplish that, the issues in this
`case, these issues in this case would not be issues at all.
`THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
`MR. ZOPPO: Okay. So I think the next topic to
`discuss is the February 22nd petition to amend the priority
`claims in the '432 patent, and that was the one filed pro
`se. Let me make sure what that petition did before we get
`into the details. So the original priority claims, as I
`discussed, were two continuation claims: A continuation of
`
`01:46:54PM
`
`01:46:58PM
`
`01:47:01PM
`
`01:47:04PM
`
`01:47:09PM
`
`01:47:12PM
`
`01:47:14PM
`
`01:47:15PM
`
`01:47:18PM
`
`01:47:22PM
`
`01:47:26PM
`
`01:47:31PM
`
`01:47:31PM
`
`01:47:33PM
`
`01:47:35PM
`
`01:47:40PM
`
`01:47:50PM
`
`01:47:56PM
`
`01:48:01PM
`
`01:48:04PM
`
`01:48:07PM
`
`01:48:15PM
`
`01:48:23PM
`
`01:48:32PM
`
`01:48:40PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`11
`
`

`

`978
`
`the '676 and a continuation of the '837.
`This first petition changed those entirely, and it
`converted them into a sequential chain. Instead of being
`continuations, it made them continuations in part. So the
`'432 patent became a continuation of the '676 patent which
`in turn became a continuation-in-part of the '837.
`THE COURT: Stop.
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes.
`THE COURT: The '432.
`MR. ZOPPO: Is a continuation-in-part of the '676,
`and the '676, a continuation-in-part of the '837.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ZOPPO: Now, first of all, those changes are
`not consistent with the inventor's testimony as to what the
`intention was in filing the '432 patent. The testimony we
`read earlier was that Mr. Nader Asghari-Kamrani wanted to
`file a continuation, yet he changed his priority claims to a
`continuation-in-part.
`On top of that, we had the testimony from
`Dr. Tadayon that the originally filed priority claims are
`perfect the way they are. That is in Court Exhibit 1.
`That's Page 192, 18 to 22. So we can see Dr. Tadayon's
`testimony. "So I don't claim that I have the full, you
`know, list of all the related cousin or, you know, uncle
`cases here, but the ones I wrote here are perfectly correct.
`
`01:48:44PM
`
`01:48:50PM
`
`01:48:54PM
`
`01:48:58PM
`
`01:49:04PM
`
`01:49:09PM
`
`01:49:13PM
`
`01:49:14PM
`
`01:49:15PM
`
`01:49:17PM
`
`01:49:23PM
`
`01:49:30PM
`
`01:49:31PM
`
`01:49:36PM
`
`01:49:43PM
`
`01:49:47PM
`
`01:49:53PM
`
`01:49:57PM
`
`01:49:59PM
`
`01:50:02PM
`
`01:50:08PM
`
`01:50:18PM
`
`01:51:21PM
`
`01:51:25PM
`
`01:51:28PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`12
`
`

`

`979
`
`You know, there's nothing wrong with it."
`So Dr. Tadayon gave that testimony at his
`deposition.
`THE COURT: That is at?
`MR. ZOPPO: That is at 192, lines 18 through 22.
`THE COURT: Nothing wrong. Okay.
`MR. ZOPPO: Right. What's interesting about that
`testimony is that Dr. Tadayon gave that testimony after
`having received the malpractice release from plaintiffs, and
`that malpractice release was not produced to USAA before
`that deposition.
`So you may wonder why there is no testimony about
`that. It's because we didn't have it, Your Honor.
`Another reason that this petition --
`THE COURT: Doesn't indicate by fact that you
`didn't have it? Did you ask for the documentations?
`MR. ZOPPO: We had served document subpoenas, yes,
`Your Honor, before the deposition. We had no way that a
`malpractice release existed, so we did not ask could you
`please produce the malpractice release.
`THE COURT: Dr. Tadayon doesn't look good here,
`Mr. Zoppo, but the question is not whether Dr. Tadayon looks
`good. The question is whether the plaintiffs intended to
`deceive or Dr. Tadayon did. I'm not sure what evidence is
`that he intended to deceive the patent office.
`
`01:51:33PM
`
`01:51:35PM
`
`01:51:39PM
`
`01:51:40PM
`
`01:51:43PM
`
`01:51:55PM
`
`01:51:57PM
`
`01:51:59PM
`
`01:52:08PM
`
`01:52:13PM
`
`01:52:18PM
`
`01:52:21PM
`
`01:52:23PM
`
`01:52:29PM
`
`01:52:35PM
`
`01:52:37PM
`
`01:52:41PM
`
`01:52:44PM
`
`01:52:46PM
`
`01:52:50PM
`
`01:52:53PM
`
`01:52:57PM
`
`01:53:02PM
`
`01:53:06PM
`
`01:53:14PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`13
`
`

`

`980
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Understood, Your Honor. Relatedly, I
`think on this same point, getting at this idea of altering
`these priority claims, is, again, I mentioned that the
`plaintiffs changed from continuation and
`continuation-in-part type priority claims, and as the
`evidence came out, I think all the witnesses except for
`Dr. Tadayon share a common understanding of what a
`continuation-in-part is, and that is that it must add new
`subject matter.
`If you recall, we discussed with Mr. Nader
`Asghari-Kamrani the overlap of subject matter.
`THE COURT: Everybody understands what a
`continuation is and what a continuation-in-part is.
`MR. ZOPPO: Correct.
`THE COURT: The only person who seemed to have a
`lot of problem with it was Dr. Tadayon, but I'm trying to
`figure out why.
`MR. ZOPPO: You and me both, Your Honor. I think
`that's a valid question. It does not add up, someone who
`spent five years as a patent examiner, and with
`Dr. Tadayon's credentials, to have such a disconnected
`understanding of such basic patent practice is very curious.
`I agree with that, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Showing that Tadayon had any interest
`personally, interest in this patent.
`
`01:53:19PM
`
`01:53:22PM
`
`01:53:27PM
`
`01:53:31PM
`
`01:53:35PM
`
`01:53:40PM
`
`01:53:44PM
`
`01:53:48PM
`
`01:53:52PM
`
`01:53:55PM
`
`01:54:00PM
`
`01:54:04PM
`
`01:54:06PM
`
`01:54:09PM
`
`01:54:10PM
`
`01:54:12PM
`
`01:54:19PM
`
`01:54:21PM
`
`01:54:26PM
`
`01:54:29PM
`
`01:54:32PM
`
`01:54:37PM
`
`01:54:43PM
`
`01:54:48PM
`
`01:54:52PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`14
`
`

`

`981
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Your Honor, I'm not aware of evidence
`that Dr. Tadayon has a financial interest in the outcome
`here. I can't represent that I do.
`THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Zoppo.
`MR. ZOPPO: Okay. Getting back to this idea of the
`plaintiffs' attempt to change the priority claims, it's
`important to note that, number one, the plaintiffs Nader
`Asghari-Kamrani did not contact the former lawyers before
`changing the continuation claims to a continuation-in-part,
`and that's important to note because the former lawyers were
`certainly capable of having had an intent to make the claims
`the way they were or to keep them the way they were, yet no
`investigation was made.
`Similarly, given Nader Asghari-Kamrani's testimony
`that the '432 patent, it discloses no additional subject
`matter than the '676 or the '432 -- I'm sorry, strike that.
`That the '432 discloses no new subject matter than the '676.
`The designation of continuation-in-part doesn't make sense.
`If the definition of a continuation-in-part is that it add
`subject matter, how can the '432 patent be a
`continuation-in-part of the '676 when the testimony is that
`it doesn't do that? So that just doesn't add up. It does
`not reconcile.
`Now, I want to talk briefly about Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim
`was our first witness to testify in this case, and Mr. Kim
`
`01:54:55PM
`
`01:54:57PM
`
`01:55:02PM
`
`01:55:06PM
`
`01:55:10PM
`
`01:55:16PM
`
`01:55:18PM
`
`01:55:25PM
`
`01:55:29PM
`
`01:55:34PM
`
`01:55:39PM
`
`01:55:45PM
`
`01:55:49PM
`
`01:55:52PM
`
`01:55:57PM
`
`01:56:03PM
`
`01:56:09PM
`
`01:56:17PM
`
`01:56:22PM
`
`01:56:28PM
`
`01:56:32PM
`
`01:56:38PM
`
`01:56:44PM
`
`01:57:00PM
`
`01:57:04PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`15
`
`

`

`982
`
`filed two petitions in this case. There were two issues to
`amend the priority claims in the '432 patent. He made
`representations in those petitions that the entire delay in
`making those changes to the priority claims, unintentional.
`Okay. That, as we have heard testimony from the PTO
`experts, they couldn't have been the product of an
`intentional course of action, the original priority claims.
`I want to show you some of Steve Kim's testimony
`that call his representations into great question. Could we
`bring up 104, 11 to 14. One of the things Steve Kim
`testified to, is I asked him, "But you don't know the filing
`strategy that was in the heads of the plaintiffs when they
`made these filings, right?"
`"Answer: I don't know."
`The filings we were discussing were the '676, the
`'432 and the '837. Now, I don't know how Steve Kim could
`have truthfully represented unintentional delay or that the
`priority claims are the product of unintentional action if
`he did not understand the intentions that the plaintiffs
`had. And similarly, if we could go to transcript 163, 15 to
`20. Okay. I was asking Mr. Kim about his understanding of
`the priority claims that were made in the '432 patent
`application, and I asked, "So it's your testimony that the
`applicants did provide a relationship between the '837 and
`the '676 and the '432 patent; is that your testimony?
`
`01:57:11PM
`
`01:57:18PM
`
`01:57:25PM
`
`01:57:30PM
`
`01:57:36PM
`
`01:57:40PM
`
`01:57:43PM
`
`01:57:48PM
`
`01:57:51PM
`
`01:57:58PM
`
`01:58:12PM
`
`01:58:21PM
`
`01:58:23PM
`
`01:58:26PM
`
`01:58:28PM
`
`01:58:31PM
`
`01:58:38PM
`
`01:58:43PM
`
`01:58:47PM
`
`01:58:52PM
`
`01:59:01PM
`
`01:59:16PM
`
`01:59:23PM
`
`01:59:27PM
`
`01:59:29PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`16
`
`

`

`983
`
`He says, "That's my speculation.
`"Question: But you don't know that to be true,
`
`correct?
`
`"Answer: I don't know."
`So Mr. Kim did not understand the originally filed
`priority claims. I asked how he could have truthfully made
`such representations. And in the same vein, if we could go
`to trial transcript 158, 8 to 22.
`THE COURT: What page is this?
`MR. ZOPPO: This is -- should be 158, 8 to 22.
`This is testimony that we elicited that Mr. Kim did not know
`whether or not the plaintiffs intended not to claim priority
`to the '400 application, and that's notwithstanding that his
`petition certified unintentional delay in doing so.
`One final point I wanted to bring up. That is 117,
`lines 5 to 13.
`THE COURT: The last one you had, that was page
`
`158?
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes.
`THE COURT: Now we are on Page 117?
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes. Now we are going to 117, lines 5
`through 13. This is where I'm asking Mr. Kim why is he
`trying to change the priority claims in the '432 patent to
`include a claim of priority to the '400 application.
`I ask, "Is it because it would make the '432 patent
`
`01:59:34PM
`
`01:59:36PM
`
`01:59:38PM
`
`01:59:39PM
`
`01:59:43PM
`
`01:59:46PM
`
`01:59:54PM
`
`02:00:04PM
`
`02:00:20PM
`
`02:00:22PM
`
`02:00:34PM
`
`02:00:42PM
`
`02:00:46PM
`
`02:00:52PM
`
`02:01:03PM
`
`02:01:11PM
`
`02:01:19PM
`
`02:01:23PM
`
`02:01:24PM
`
`02:01:25PM
`
`02:01:28PM
`
`02:01:32PM
`
`02:01:43PM
`
`02:01:50PM
`
`02:01:56PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`17
`
`

`

`984
`
`safer against USAA's CBMR petitions?
`And the answer: "Yes, that's part of the reasons."
`He goes on in his testimony to give the other reason, and
`that other reason was the approaching deadline to respond to
`USAA's CBMR petition.
`The reason I raise this is because it's USAA's view
`that the '400 application was added to the priority claim,
`not because everybody missed it and it was an honest
`mistake, but it was part of the litigation strategy to deal
`with USAA's CBMR petitions.
`As for Mr. Kim's second petition, I would repeat
`the prior basis I provided the Court, and I would also note
`that I don't want to get into Mr. Fortkort because Mr. Davis
`is going to address that, but with respect to Ms. Cao, the
`evidence is that Mr. Kim attempted to obtain a signed
`declaration from Ms. Cao that that delay was unintentional
`and said to her in a cover e-mail that if that statement of
`unintentional delay is correct, you can sign the
`declaration. Ms. Cao did not sign that declaration.
`Your Honor, with that I'm going to turn it over to
`Mr. Davis.
`THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let's get the testimony
`in that regard. Where is that, Mr. Zoppo?
`MR. ZOPPO: With respect to Ms. Cao we have --
`THE COURT: What line are we on? Mr. Kim's
`
`02:01:59PM
`
`02:02:03PM
`
`02:02:09PM
`
`02:02:12PM
`
`02:02:17PM
`
`02:02:20PM
`
`02:02:24PM
`
`02:02:31PM
`
`02:02:35PM
`
`02:02:39PM
`
`02:02:53PM
`
`02:03:02PM
`
`02:03:06PM
`
`02:03:12PM
`
`02:03:17PM
`
`02:03:23PM
`
`02:03:29PM
`
`02:03:35PM
`
`02:03:38PM
`
`02:03:47PM
`
`02:03:49PM
`
`02:03:50PM
`
`02:03:52PM
`
`02:03:58PM
`
`02:04:05PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`18
`
`

`

`985
`
`testimony we are still talking about?
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes. I'm going to try and find that
`page and line for you right now. We are searching for that
`pincite, Your Honor. In the meantime, I will point out that
`the unsigned declaration is Defendant's Exhibit DX-61, is
`the unsigned declaration.
`THE COURT: Is exhibit number what?
`MR. ZOPPO: DX-61. We also found the pincite, Your
`Honor. It's Page 143, lines 15 through 18.
`THE COURT: Wait a minute.
`MR. ZOPPO: I'm sorry, through 20.
`THE COURT: There was nothing on this form, was it,
`
`DX-61?
`
`MR. ZOPPO: DX-61, there is Bates numbers in the
`lower right corner, NOVKIM 13 through 14. That declaration
`is unsigned, and we also have the trial --
`THE COURT: You talking about DX-61. What is the
`Bates stamp?
`MR. ZOPPO: NOVKIM 13 through 14, Your Honor, is
`the unsigned declaration.
`THE COURT: I don't have 13-14 in this exhibit.
`MR. ZOPPO: In DX-61?
`THE COURT: I have 261. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
`Didn't have it.
`MR. ZOPPO: No problem, Your Honor.
`
`02:04:14PM
`
`02:04:16PM
`
`02:04:18PM
`
`02:04:37PM
`
`02:04:43PM
`
`02:04:49PM
`
`02:04:52PM
`
`02:04:56PM
`
`02:05:29PM
`
`02:05:38PM
`
`02:05:47PM
`
`02:07:18PM
`
`02:07:21PM
`
`02:07:22PM
`
`02:07:28PM
`
`02:07:32PM
`
`02:07:37PM
`
`02:07:41PM
`
`02:07:42PM
`
`02:07:47PM
`
`02:07:49PM
`
`02:07:55PM
`
`02:07:59PM
`
`02:09:09PM
`
`02:09:06PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`19
`
`

`

`986
`
`THE COURT: 61. All right. DX-61.
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes, Your Honor. And Bates numbers 13
`through 14.
`THE COURT: I'm looking at -- just a minute.
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ZOPPO: Mr. Kim's trial testimony is also on
`the screen. That's lines 143, 15 through 20 where I ask,
`"And in number 3 of that list, you wrote to Veronica, 'Your
`draft declaration. If it is true, you can sign it.' Is
`that right?
`"Yes.
`"And Ms. Cao did not sign the declaration, correct?
`"Yes."
`That declaration was never signed, Your Honor. And
`Mr. Kim made his petition certifying unintentional delay
`without that certification. The question of -- it's a fair
`question -- to ask us why didn't we ask Ms. Cao about this
`during her deposition, and there is a few reasons for that.
`Number one, prior to Ms. Cao's deposition, none of these
`documents about declarations or investigation were produced
`to us. We did not learn about the existence of any of this
`discussion between Mr. Kim and Ms. Cao until after the
`depositions had occurred. Though we did ask questions
`during the deposition about whether Ms. Cao had been
`
`02:09:15PM
`
`02:10:01PM
`
`02:10:06PM
`
`02:10:07PM
`
`02:10:11PM
`
`02:11:40PM
`
`02:11:42PM
`
`02:11:44PM
`
`02:11:51PM
`
`02:11:55PM
`
`02:11:58PM
`
`02:11:59PM
`
`02:11:59PM
`
`02:12:02PM
`
`02:12:03PM
`
`02:12:08PM
`
`02:12:12PM
`
`02:12:17PM
`
`02:12:25PM
`
`02:12:28PM
`
`02:12:35PM
`
`02:12:39PM
`
`02:12:45PM
`
`02:12:48PM
`
`02:12:55PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`20
`
`

`

`987
`
`contacted by any lawyers concerning the question of
`unintentional delay in the amendments that were made to the
`priority claims, those questions prompted instructions not
`to answer. So we do not have any testimony from Ms. Cao on
`this question.
`THE COURT: Well, that was part and parcel of this
`wonderful thing that he was representing everybody. I've
`already indicated that I felt that was unethical. However,
`ethics are only important as the unethical is inequitable.
`Evidently ethics in the patent law is confusing since people
`who do patent work are not necessarily lawyers. We'll see,
`Mr. Zoppo. What else have you got to offer? Anything else?
`MR. ZOPPO: On my point, Your Honor, I'm going to
`conclude and pass to Mr. Davis to discuss the other
`witnesses.
`THE COURT: I keep coming back to, I find that a
`lot of untruthful information is being furnished to the
`patent office. The question was done with an intent to
`deceive.
`
`MR. ZOPPO: Correct.
`THE COURT: The problem is it's not an objective
`standard. It's a subjective standard. So one has to get to
`the motive of the individual.
`MR. ZOPPO: Yes, sir.
`THE COURT: I'm having some problems getting to the
`
`02:13:00PM
`
`02:13:04PM
`
`02:13:08PM
`
`02:13:12PM
`
`02:13:16PM
`
`02:13:22PM
`
`02:13:24PM
`
`02:13:30PM
`
`02:13:36PM
`
`02:13:48PM
`
`02:13:59PM
`
`02:14:21PM
`
`02:14:24PM
`
`02:14:26PM
`
`02:14:30PM
`
`02:14:32PM
`
`02:14:37PM
`
`02:14:43PM
`
`02:14:48PM
`
`02:14:50PM
`
`02:14:50PM
`
`02:14:54PM
`
`02:15:01PM
`
`02:15:02PM
`
`02:15:03PM
`
`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
`
`JODY A. STEWART, Official Court Reporter
`
`21
`
`

`

`988
`
`motives, Mr. Zoppo.
`MR. ZOPPO: Understood, Your Honor. I think that
`the motives for the plaintiffs in this case are rather
`clear. As you know, there's a very substantial damages
`award sought in this case since before the patent was
`invalidated. I think that -- I don't want to step into
`Mr. Davis's argument concerning Mr. Nienstadt, but I will
`observe that -- I would say a majority of the most
`questionable conduct in this case was prompted by a notice
`by our firm to the plaintiffs that there's a problem with
`the patent. And that prompted a scramble, and in that
`scramble to try to fix things and to keep that ability, that
`hope of getting that massive damages award,
`misrepresentations were made to the patent office.
`THE COURT: What are you talking about the massive
`damage award? What massive damage award.
`MR. ZOPPO: The plaintiffs seek a massive damages
`award from the plaintiffs.
`MR. PEARSON: Your Honor, I object to any reference
`to demands or damages post -- especially post you finding
`the patent invalid.
`THE COURT: I'm confused. Is there some damages
`award involved?
`MR. PEARSON: There is no evidence of such in this
`case. It is simply not an issue. I believe it was Judge
`
`02:15:07PM
`
`02:15:09PM
`
`02:15:11PM
`
`02:15:18PM
`
`02:15:21PM
`
`02:15:26PM
`
`02:15:32PM
`
`02:15:36PM
`
`02:15:42PM
`
`02:15:48PM
`
`02:15:52PM
`
`02:15:57PM
`
`02:16:03PM
`
`02:16:09PM
`
`02:16:11PM
`
`02:16:13PM
`
`02:16:16PM
`
`0

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