`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`
`
`
`
` Pages 1 - 22
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Before The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Judge
`
`VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC., )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
`)
` VS. ) NO. C 11-06637 RS
` )
`MICROSTRATEGY, INC.,
`)
` )
` Defendant. )
` )
`
` San Francisco, California
` Thursday, January 24, 2013
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
` SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
` 1201 Third Avenue - Suite 3800
` Seattle, Washington 98101
` BY: BROOKE A.M. TAYLOR, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`
`For Defendant:
` QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
` 50 California Street - 22nd Floor
` San Francisco, California 94111
` BY: JENNIFER A. KASH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reported By: Jo Ann Bryce, CSR No. 3321, RMR, CRR, FCRR
` Official Reporter
`
`
`Computerized Transcription By Eclipse
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
` 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
`
`Thursday - January 24, 2013
`
` 1:27 p.m.
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`---000---
`
`THE CLERK: C 11-6637, Vasudevan Software versus
`
`MicroStrategy.
`
`Counsel, please come forward and state your appearances.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Brooke
`
`Taylor for the plaintiff, Vasudevan Software, Inc.
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`
`MS. KASH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jennifer Kash
`
`for defendant MicroStrategy.
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`
`This motion is -- the motion that is in front of us is
`
`VSI's motion for sanctions. Unusual circumstances that are
`
`presented.
`
`I have spent some time with the materials and, so, let me
`
`give you my tentative view and then let you address it from
`
`there.
`
`With respect to the actual request for a reexam pertaining
`
`to the client of the Susman firm, the argument out of which a
`
`lot of these issues arise, the actual filing of that request I
`
`think is covered by Noerr-Pennington; and I don't think that
`
`that would provide a basis, whatever the circumstance, for a
`
`sanctions award. At the very least I think it's premature
`
`because a determination as to whether or not it's a sham would
`
`
`
` 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
`
`have to satisfy the first prong that the request was
`
`subjectively frivolous and unreasonable.
`
`But I also understand the motion is not being confined to
`
`the actual submission of the reexam request, but flowing from
`
`the facts that are set forth by VSi that MicroStrategy and its
`
`counsel threatened, if you will, to make life miserable for the
`
`other side if they didn't dismiss this case and part of that
`
`was going to be in the form of conduct that would target not
`
`only VSi but VSi's counsel.
`
`First of all, with respect to my authority, I do think I
`
`would have authority under Section 1927 and the inherent
`
`authority of the court to issue sanctions awards in this
`
`context.
`
`So then the question is assessing this conduct. If the
`
`conduct is -- and my understanding also, to digress for a
`
`moment, is that MicroStrategy, at least at this wave of
`
`briefing, is not taking on the accuracy of the historical
`
`record, if you will; but saying even if true, it doesn't amount
`
`to sanctionable conduct.
`
`My reaction to it is if true, it certainly is cause for
`
`concern and I think it's practice that I don't think is very
`
`impressive, a practice I don't like. I think it's less than
`
`what one would expect. At the end of the day, however, I don't
`
`think it rises to the level of sanctionable conduct and I don't
`
`think that the remedies that VSi suggests would be appropriate
`
`
`
` 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
`
`to constitute a sanctions award here, I don't think any of
`
`those would be -- I think they would be quite excessive even if
`
`sanctions were to be appropriate in the circumstance.
`
`Before I turn it back to you, having said that, I do think
`
`the conduct, if true, is really a pretty terrible practice and
`
`I don't countenance it in any way; but I think sanctions are a
`
`very, very heavy weapon that is to be utilized carefully. And,
`
`as I say, I don't think this conduct, regardless of how I view
`
`it in terms of whether or not I think it's the way you practice
`
`law and the way the company should conduct itself, I don't
`
`think it's tantamount to sanctionable conduct.
`
`So that's my tentative read on it, but I will certainly
`
`listen with interest to counsel. So, Ms. Taylor?
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`I agree, these are extraordinary circumstances. You're
`
`familiar with the facts of the case and let me just briefly
`
`piece them together and summarize some of what you said, which
`
`is true.
`
`MicroStrategy does not deny, does not attempt to deny,
`
`puts in no evidence denying the statements made by its general
`
`counsel, a lawyer obviously, at this meeting.
`
`I've been in a lot of meetings. I have never in my
`
`practice had a lawyer threaten my law firm. This is not
`
`bluster. This is not posturing. Threatening a law firm and a
`
`law firm's clients as a means to extract a settlement is,
`
`
`
` 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
`
`indeed, serious conduct. I agree that sanctions are very
`
`serious and I think that's warranted here.
`
`If there are no sanctions warranted here, I think moving
`
`on past today this is going to become a routine practice. I
`
`see no reason why it wouldn't. Not condoning the tactic, you
`
`know, it's a strong statement as a statement the lawyer will go
`
`back to his client after this hearing and say, "Yeah, the judge
`
`told us he didn't really like it if it's true, and I know we
`
`didn't deny it, but" --
`
`THE COURT: Of course, they're not off scot-free
`
`because if, in fact, in the PTO proceedings a determination is
`
`made that it was a sham, the Zillow reexam process, this
`
`doesn't foreclose a request either before the PTO, or perhaps
`
`elsewhere, for sanctions flowing from that filing or that
`
`request; but -- and I realize you -- well, I don't think you
`
`necessarily -- maybe this is a question I should ask.
`
`Do you disagree with me that the actual act of requesting
`
`a reexam does trigger Noerr-Pennington? And I understand your
`
`motion is broader. You're not limiting yourself to the filing
`
`of the request.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Certainly not. It's coupling them, but I
`
`do disagree that the petition is not protected by
`
`Noerr-Pennington.
`
`The Noerr-Pennington cases that were cited by
`
`MicroStrategy have to do with, you know, whether or not you're
`
`
`
` 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
`
`immune from liability for your actions or pre-petitioning
`
`behavior. They say nothing and they do not address the Court's
`
`inherent power to sanction a party for bad faith behavior,
`
`and --
`
`THE COURT: That's right, but it can't be, unless
`
`you're completely swallowing the Noerr-Pennington rule. If the
`
`basis for the determination that the conduct was improper is
`
`something which falls within Noerr-Pennington, I would have to
`
`have a determination -- I'd have to make the determination that
`
`it was an objectively unreasonable request.
`
`And you're -- you can't have it -- you're sort of saying,
`
`"Yes, you know, the petition itself is only part of our story."
`
`That's true, but standing alone it cannot provide a basis at
`
`this point in the case, I think, of an award of sanctions
`
`absent a determination that the underlying petition was without
`
`any basis.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: We disagree. I think the Ninth Circuit
`
`cases say that standing alone you take -- if the Court finds
`
`bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith, then sanctions
`
`are available; and I think --
`
`THE COURT: What case are you -- I looked at the
`
`B.K.B. case.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: B.K.B.
`
`THE COURT: That has nothing to do with
`
`Noerr-Pennington. That's a Rule 412 improper admission of
`
`
`
` 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
`
`evidence in the Trial Court in a sex discrimination case.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Right.
`
`THE COURT: It has nothing to do with
`
`Noerr-Pennington.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: The Noerr-Pennington cases cited by
`
`MicroStrategy have nothing to do -- those are cases where
`
`you've got two parties who are adversaries and you're
`
`questioning whether some action brought by one is a sham or
`
`not. That's not this case. This case is MicroStrategy's
`
`counsel using a collateral attack on Zillow's patent because I
`
`represent Zillow in another case.
`
`THE COURT: I know, but my point is you can't get any
`
`more squarely under Noerr-Pennington than if the conduct that
`
`you're labeling as sanctionable is petitioning an agency or a
`
`court. That is Noerr-Pennington.
`
`And the idea that the Court still has this amorphous power
`
`to sanction, I think it's only in the context that you're
`
`doing -- you're arguing the conduct is something more than the
`
`petition, and I understand that's what you are doing.
`
`And, so, I'm saying that there is an argument to be made
`
`but my question, when I started out, was limited to whether or
`
`not you would acknowledge that, putting aside the back and
`
`forth between counsel regarding that petition, if we didn't
`
`have that in the case, it would be a Noerr-Pennington problem.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: I think we disagree; but I would say on
`
`
`
` 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
`
`the case before us, the good news here is, for purposes of this
`
`argument, that's not what we have here. We have a record,
`
`undisputed evidentiary record, of sworn declarations saying
`
`this happened. And it's not just that MicroStrategy said, "Oh,
`
`we'll get to it at a later date if we need to." They didn't
`
`refute it.
`
`And I think, Your Honor, it speaks volumes. If somebody
`
`made that accusation against me and it wasn't true, you can bet
`
`that I would have a sworn declaration in the record saying it
`
`hadn't happened.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I'm assuming that it is true and I
`
`don't like it, but I don't think it rises to the level of
`
`sanctionable conduct.
`
`There are a lot of things that go on in practice that
`
`aren't practice that one would be proud of, but it doesn't make
`
`every one of those sanctionable.
`
`And my view in this instance is that sophisticated
`
`players, I think it was, if true, a foolish approach and I
`
`would think both the client and the lawyer look pretty bad that
`
`it was done, but I don't think it's sanctionable.
`
`And then to bootstrap that into your requested relief,
`
`which is all these proposed instructions to the jury and
`
`various other things, I mean, it is so out of whack from what
`
`is, in essence, just, I think, pretty shoddy bad practice.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Well, with respect to -- I mean, I agree,
`
`
`
` 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
`
`it's bad practice. I do think it's more serious than that
`
`because if we don't -- if there is no -- and with respect to
`
`whatever the sanction is, Your Honor, we respect your authority
`
`to craft the appropriate sanctions. We put out there a list of
`
`things we thought were, but we're amenable, of course, to your
`
`suggestions or thinking outside of those.
`
`I think if it goes unrestrained with nothing, with no
`
`conduct, with no recognition of what is done, then this conduct
`
`will become the norm. It's far beyond -- there's a lot of
`
`conduct that, for reasons I can understand, that courts don't
`
`like about, you know, discovery, things that go on in
`
`discovery.
`
`This is threatening. If it becomes the norm, then I could
`
`go and say, "Well, let me see who Quinn Emanuel's other clients
`
`are and see what actions I can take against them." And I can
`
`go ahead and tell Ms. Kash at this hearing, "Well, look, now
`
`all your clients are all fair game."
`
`It is one thing certainly to say that you look with
`
`disfavor upon it, but --
`
`THE COURT: I think your remedy, though, at that point
`
`is if you can establish that this pleading ultimately that is
`
`submitted to a court is a sham, then you get possibly your
`
`sanctions award.
`
`At this stage it's a lot of stomping around the watering
`
`hole, frankly, about litigation and, you know, we're not naive
`
`
`
` 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
`
`about this. Litigation is not pretty often and people say all
`
`sorts of things that they probably shouldn't say; and I just
`
`don't -- if we start sanctioning every time there are
`
`conversations between counsel where one counsel says, "You
`
`know, I'm going to get you. I'm going to win. You're going to
`
`lose. I'm going to make your life miserable," I mean, we're
`
`not policing that. That is not what sanctions is all about,
`
`and I just --
`
`MS. TAYLOR: I would like to say one more thing and
`
`I'll just -- then I'll stop. It seems Your Honor's opinion is
`
`clear.
`
`I agree, this is not about saying, "I'm going to win this
`
`motion. I'm going to win this case. You know, we're going to
`
`make -- we're going to make you pay fees at the end for a
`
`baseless case." That's not -- I think this, fairly and
`
`respectfully, Your Honor, falls far outside of this conduct.
`
`Going after your adversary's counsel's other clients as a
`
`means to do that is something entirely different than, you
`
`know, chest pounding about winning a case or a certain issue.
`
`THE COURT: Right. Although, you see, I think there
`
`is a problem that if -- who knows what's going to happen in
`
`that reexam proceeding. If they actually invalidate the
`
`patents, or -- I mean, then the -- if it turns out that there
`
`was a basis to proceed, one can argue about standing and all
`
`the rest of it; but at that point it's pretty tough to argue,
`
`
`
` 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
`
`for whatever motivation, that the proceeding in the PTO, which
`
`is what was threatened, was somehow improper.
`
`I mean, I think we need to know what happens in the PTO to
`
`know this --
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Right.
`
`THE COURT: -- because otherwise we have a lot of
`
`jawboning between counsel.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: I don't think so because what we can look
`
`at in terms of the record is, there's no -- also,
`
`MicroStrategy, and I think it's incredible and also as one is
`
`noted, you can evaluate there's no evidence to it in the
`
`contrary in the brief, says, "Oh, we just are interested in bad
`
`patents. We're just interested in bad patents."
`
`If MicroStrategy would tell that to its investing public,
`
`I'd be interested in seeing it, if MicroStrategy would put in a
`
`declaration about that. It is not interested in bad patents.
`
`This action was taken for that purpose.
`
`And as to your point on, "Well, if the reexam goes
`
`forward, well, then, it must not be a sham," I think you're
`
`familiar in all the patent cases you have before you, almost
`
`every patent petition for reexam is accepted by the PTO; and,
`
`as you know also, these things have a long life to them and
`
`that doesn't mean that, you know, something is or isn't a sham
`
`because the PTO accepts it.
`
`So I guess maybe later, you know, based on what I've heard
`
`
`
` 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
`
`so far today, we'll be back arguing, "Well, if they accepted it
`
`but didn't invalidate it, then it was or it wasn't a sham." To
`
`me --
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, that's Noerr-Pennington.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Well, I think when you threaten an
`
`opposing counsel like this, it is far beyond something -- I
`
`think it is. And if you don't -- of course, we defer to your
`
`views; but if this kind of conduct isn't sanctioned, I think it
`
`will become rampant and I think probably next month at a
`
`defense-side conference on how to litigate patent cases, this
`
`will be, you know, a new tactic.
`
`THE COURT: I doubt that. I very much doubt that. I
`
`don't think this is one of those things where if a Court
`
`doesn't step in, the Bar will go crazy and start doing
`
`something they're not otherwise doing now.
`
`I just -- I don't think this was a pretty picture by any
`
`means and I think they have a lot to explain just in general
`
`about how they went about this, but I don't think it rises to
`
`the level of sanctions.
`
`So, with -- but I understand why you're agitated about it
`
`and I, again, think it's pretty bad advertisement for those who
`
`are involved in this case in terms of how to litigate a patent
`
`case.
`
`So with that, I will turn to you --
`
`MS. KASH: Thank you.
`
`
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: -- Ms. Kash, in the unenviable position of
`
`giving me some explanation about this.
`
`MS. KASH: No, I'm happy to.
`
`I mean, just to be clear, I mean, I think there's two
`
`separate issues here, and one which we didn't know was
`
`originally being brought in the instant -- in the first motion
`
`which was in large part in the sanctions motion was served upon
`
`us as well was based on the statement that we were threatened
`
`with -- that we threatened somehow -- that the conduct that
`
`existed, the reexam, was the basis for their sanctions motion.
`
`So the second sort of prong that came out more apparently
`
`in the reply, which is these statements made about making
`
`litigation painful and whatever, I see those as two separate
`
`actions for purposes of what we're discussing here.
`
`My client --
`
`THE COURT: But the most disturbing part of it, and
`
`perhaps this will focus you --
`
`MS. KASH: Yes. Sure. Sure.
`
`THE COURT: -- the comment that gets the closest,
`
`which is the one I think perhaps is the most -- caused the most
`
`agitation from Ms. Taylor's perspective, is not just, "We're
`
`going to beat you, the other side," which everybody expects to
`
`hear a lot of that, it's that, "The particular law firm you've
`
`chosen, we're going to go after their unrelated clients to make
`
`you drop the case."
`
`
`
` 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
`
`MS. KASH: That was never --
`
`THE COURT: That is of the back and forth which often
`
`can be, when you're stepping away from it and looking at it,
`
`childish if nothing else. That's troubling because that takes
`
`it a step beyond the banter that we unfortunately have to deal
`
`with in high-stakes litigation.
`
`MS. KASH: That comment was never made and that's not
`
`even in the declaration. We never -- my client never said,
`
`"We're going to go after your unrelated" --
`
`THE COURT: You haven't disputed it.
`
`MS. KASH: No. If you look at the unrelated clients,
`
`we said, "We're going to go after Susman" -- I believe what he
`
`said was, "We're going to make this case very painful for
`
`Susman," or it's very -- I mean, you can show me the
`
`declaration, but my understanding is that nothing was said
`
`about going after unrelated clients.
`
`THE COURT: Well, let's stop with just going after the
`
`law firm.
`
`MS. KASH: Well, there's --
`
`THE COURT: Wait a minute. Why is that -- why is it
`
`open season on that? I mean, this is -- law firms often aren't
`
`sometimes the best of friends and I understand that; but the
`
`notion that you're going to say, "Not only are we going to
`
`prevail in this lawsuit and perhaps even at the end of the day
`
`you're going to end up owing us fees and everything else," but
`
`
`
` 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
`
`to say, "And we're going to go after the law firm you've picked
`
`and we're going to make that firm's life miserable," that's a
`
`pretty obnoxious thing to say; isn't it?
`
`MS. KASH: I don't disagree that the mediation that we
`
`were in and the communications that were occurring, by the way,
`
`which it was my client's understanding were a privileged
`
`discussion between Ms. Taylor and himself, were heated.
`
`We did not submit --
`
`THE COURT: Where's the privilege? There's no
`
`privilege between opposing parties.
`
`MS. KASH: When there's a mediation, oftentimes when
`
`you sign -- and I understand that this mediation was outside
`
`the scope of the one that we conducted with the mediator,
`
`but -- and we're not arguing a privilege. I'm saying that they
`
`thought that they were having a candid conversation about
`
`settlement.
`
`We did not put in some of the statements that my client
`
`thinks were insulting that were said to him by Ms. Taylor
`
`directly.
`
`THE COURT: That's the worst argument.
`
`MS. KASH: No, I'm not making --
`
`THE COURT: Wait a minute. I hate that argument.
`
`MS. KASH: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: I hear that -- whenever the argument is,
`
`question, "Justify your conduct." "Well, they said worse
`
`
`
` 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
`
`things." I don't care about that. That's not in front of me.
`
`MS. KASH: Right.
`
`THE COURT: What I care about is justifying the
`
`conduct on your side.
`
`MS. KASH: No, I absolutely understand that the
`
`mediation got a little heated and that my client in the heat of
`
`the moment said some things about the fact that, "We're going
`
`to go after fees. We're going to file a reexam against you
`
`guys. We're going to attack the client. We're going to do
`
`whatever we can to win."
`
`They feel like this case has been, in their opinion,
`
`frivolously brought and they feel that they have had to fight a
`
`lot of motions, including this one, but ones before that, that
`
`have been frivolous and have been meant to attack and drive up
`
`fees. And, so, they were upset about the fact that they're
`
`facing millions of dollars in fighting against a patent that
`
`they feel that they have demonstrated through the claim
`
`construction process in this case was clearly not infringed.
`
`And, so, as a result, do I think that that potentially
`
`came from a position of anger that was not warranted? Yes, I
`
`do; but I don't -- we never threatened a reexam against
`
`unrelated clients. That was not said in that mediation; and if
`
`it wasn't, and that was something that was not set forth in a
`
`declaration, we would have set that forth in declaration.
`
`THE COURT: But is it just coincidence, then, that a
`
`
`
` 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
`
`request for reexam happens to be lodged against a client of
`
`Susman Godfrey by your side? Is that just by happenstance?
`
`MS. KASH: My client has filed 25 reexams in the past
`
`few years. It's a very active litigant in front of the PTO.
`
`It also does have, as we note, which is not in their opening
`
`brief, it has a real estate operations group and public
`
`information about its real estate business. This is a client
`
`that zealously protects itself from patent litigation and feels
`
`strongly about it.
`
`And, so, that is why --
`
`THE COURT: I have to say, and I'm not saying that you
`
`didn't have the option of approaching this particular motion in
`
`the way you did, but it is evident to me that you didn't put in
`
`a version of events; that you rested on the notion that even
`
`assuming, as I read your submission, even assuming that the
`
`version of events provided by VSi is true, it doesn't -- it's
`
`not properly sanctionable conduct.
`
`MS. KASH: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: So you can take that position, but it's
`
`not lost on me that I don't have your version of events here.
`
`MS. KASH: I understand. I mean, I think what I'm
`
`trying -- that's why I was trying to separate the two separate
`
`types of conduct; one of which is the day of the standing to
`
`bring a reexam and, under Noerr-Pennington, as the Court I
`
`think accurately noted based on the case law, that's a separate
`
`
`
` 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
`
`issue and we set forth very clearly what remedies would exist
`
`if they disagree with that or if the PTO disagrees with that.
`
`I do not represent that client in the reexam. Fisher
`
`Richardson does.
`
`I don't even know what the reexam is about. All I know is
`
`that the mediation conduct that happened, we don't believe that
`
`the discussions that occurred during that mediation are
`
`sanctionable. I think they're actually quite typical, in my
`
`opinion, of things that have happened.
`
`You know, they got a little heated and my client's facing
`
`what it considers to be a frivolous lawsuit and, so, that's, to
`
`me, the only conduct that is now I understand what's really
`
`before the Court that isn't covered by Noerr-Pennington, which
`
`we didn't see as being the first part of the sanctions motion.
`
`That said, I still don't believe that it rises to the
`
`level of sanctions. I think if every time an attorney,
`
`ill-advised or otherwise, said that, "We're going to make this
`
`litigation painful on you," you would be facing a ton of
`
`sanctions motions.
`
`And, you know, I take seriously the Court's admonitions
`
`and I will communicate that to my client and explain sort of
`
`where you were coming from with respect to that view; but I
`
`still believe, for the reasons we set forth, that the conduct
`
`was not sanctionable.
`
`THE COURT: The point in the materials that VSI
`
`
`
` 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
`
`provided where the suggestion is made that there was an actual
`
`threat that an unrelated -- I wouldn't say "unrelated," but a
`
`Susman Godfrey client other than VSi was going to be subjected
`
`to attack, if you will, where would I look for that?
`
`MS. TAYLOR: So in the declaration, Your Honor, what
`
`it says is that Mr. Klein said he's going to take action
`
`against Susman Godfrey. And then we asked in response, "Well,
`
`what do you mean?" And he said, "You will have to wait and
`
`see."
`
`THE COURT: Which --
`
`MS. TAYLOR: It's in each declaration. So in support
`
`of the opening brief. In my declaration, Your Honor, it is in
`
`paragraph IIIC.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: And in Mr. Payne's declaration IIIC, and
`
`then at the end -- or IIC in paragraph III; and Mr. Connors'
`
`declaration --
`
`THE COURT: So you don't disagree that even the
`
`version of the events that you provided to me there isn't any
`
`statement by the MicroStrategy side that, "We're going to go
`
`after clients of Susman Godfrey." It is wait and see is what
`
`they say but, "We're going to make life miserable for the
`
`Susman Godfrey firm," and no more detail was provided.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: It actually wasn't just make life
`
`miserable. It's take action against Susman Godfrey.
`
`
`
` 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
`
`And, Your Honor, a couple of things if I can state
`
`briefly. First, Ms. Kash refers to a mediation. This was in
`
`my office. Mr. Pak phoned me and said, "Ms. Taylor, may I come
`
`to your office? We're going to be aggressive in this lawsuit
`
`and I want to talk to you about some initiatives we're going to
`
`be taking." And I said --
`
`THE COURT: You don't have to worry. I don't see this
`
`being covered by the mediation privilege, so you don't have to
`
`expend any more effort on that one.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`And then a couple of weeks later my client Zillow calls
`
`me, for whom I'm lead counsel, and says, "There's a petition
`
`filed." And it is not, coincidentally, signed by Mr. Klein.
`
`If there's any doubt here I would encourage the Court to have
`
`an evidentiary hearing and I'd very much like to hear what
`
`Mr. Klein would say about his reason to spend his shareholders'
`
`money on petition for reexam of a patent totally unrelated to
`
`his business. I think that would be very telling.
`
`And if MicroStrategy is so focused on the merits, we have
`
`had the claim construction ruling, Your Honor, and if they want
`
`to bring us a motion for summary judgment or litigate the case,
`
`then that would be welcome; but taking action against Susman
`
`Godfrey clients, which now I suspect will continue after this
`
`hearing, you know, is really, you know, a bridge too far to be
`
`sanctioned in the interests of justice and the sanctity of the
`
`
`
` 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
`
`courtroom over which you preside to have them able to do that.
`
`And MicroStrategy -- Ms. Kash says, "Oh, we're very active
`
`before the Patent Office, my client is. They file multiple
`
`reexams." I'm very curious, then, to see which of those are
`
`not against someone who's been sued -- you know, who has sued
`
`them or someone who's a competitor to them.
`
`It is plain from the face of the briefing and the absence
`
`of any evidence to the contrary that MicroStrategy had no
`
`reason to do this except to take -- to follow through on its
`
`threat made in very plain words in this conference room.
`
`And, you know, yes, they're a very sophisticated party
`
`and, so, they were very smart to do it; but that, you know,
`
`supported by counsel and the fact that they would come here and
`
`make any, you know, attempt to deny, which, you know, is --
`
`really it's beyond irritation. It is just something I've never
`
`before seen.
`
`THE COURT: Institutionally, if we start down the path
`
`of courts monitoring the discussions between lawyers about
`
`cases and starting to issue sanctions depending upon those
`
`statements, we're going down a path that's, I think, very
`
`problematic.
`
`That's why, if the actual proceedings in the PTO you can
`
`establish that they were sham proceedings, that's a different
`
`ball game; but what you're asking me to do is, your suggestion
`
`is somehow if this policing isn't done now, you know, "Katie,
`
`
`
` 22
`
`bar the door."
`
`I actually think the opposite is true. I think if
`
`sanctions start to issue when the Court is saying the
`
`conversations between opposing counsel were improper in some
`
`respect or they crossed a bridge too far, or whatever, I think
`
`that's a path that's very troubling and I don't see where we go
`
`with that.
`
`So one thing I should say is, on your side I think there
`
`was some point in the briefing where you were calculating all
`
`the fees or the amount of time and the costs associated on your
`
`side with defending this motion, forget that. This was a
`
`legitimate motion. I don't think it rises to the level of
`
`sanctions, but I don't fault VSi for bringing the motion
`
`because I find the conduct quite troubling; but, again, I don't
`
`think it's -- I don't think there's -- I don't think sanctions
`
`are an appropriate vehicle to address this back and forth.
`
`Okay. Anything further?
`
`MS. KASH: No, thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MS. TAYLOR: No, thank you.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`
`(Proceedings adjourned at 1:55 p.m.)
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
` 23
`
`CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
` I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
`
`from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`DATE: Wednesday, January 30, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________________
`
`Jo Ann Bryce, CSR No. 3321, RMR, CRR
` U.S. 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
`
`
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
