AVAYA INC. AV-1046 IPR2013-00071
`Avaya Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2 BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5 AVAYA, INC., DELL, INC., )
` SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, )
` 6 and HEWLETT-PACKARD, CO. )
` )
` 7 Petitioners, )
` )
` 8 vs. )
` )Case No. IPR2013-00071
` 9 NETWORK-1 SECURITY )U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
` SOLUTIONS, INC., )
`10 )
` Patent Owner. )
`11 )
` _____________________________)
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17 Teleconference taken on behalf of the
`
`18 Petitioner Avaya, Inc., at 2040 Main Street,
`
`19 Suite 200, Irvine, California, beginning at
`
`20 11:00 a.m., on Tuesday, October 15, 2013, before
`
`21 Tracy Mafi, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 11850.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
` 2 FOR PETITIONER AVAYA, INC.:
`
` 3 Crowell & Moring, LLP
` BY: JEFFREY D. SANOK, ESQ.
` 4 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20004
` 5 (202) 624-2995
` jsanok@crowell.com
` 6
`
` 7 FOR PETITIONER HEWLETT-PACKARD, CO.:
`
` 8 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
` BY: CHARLES J. HAWKINS, ESQ.
` 9 500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20001
`10 (202) 756-8019
` chawkins@mwe.com
`11
`
`12 FOR PETITIONER SONY CORP OF AMERICA:
`
`13 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`14 BY: LIONEL M. LAVENUE, ESQ.
` THERESA WEISENBERGER, ESQ.
`15 Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
`16 Reston, VA 20190-5675
` (571) 203-2700
`17 lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
` theresa.weisenberger@finnegan.com
`18
`
`19 FOR PETITIONER DELL, INC.:
`
`20 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
` BY: MICHAEL J. SCHEER, ESQ.
`21 200 Park Avenue
` New York, New York 10166
`22 (212) 294-3325
` mscheer@winston.com
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
`
` 2 FOR PATENT OWNER NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.:
`
` 3 DOVEL & LUNER LLP
` BY: GREG DOVEL, ESQ.
` 4 201 Santa Monica Boulevard
` Suite 600
` 5 Santa Monica, California 90401
` (310) 656-7066
` 6 greg@dovellaw.com
`
` 7
` FOR THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD:
` 8
` HONORABLE JONI Y. CHANG, JUSTIN T. ARBES,
` 9 AND GLENN J. PERRY
`
`10
` ALSO PRESENT:
`11
` RAY GABRIEL
`12 CHARLES WIELAND
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`4
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 I N D E X
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
` E X H I B I T S
` 6
`
` 7 PETITIONER'S PAGE
` (None)
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`5
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 Irvine, California;
`
` 2 Tuesday, October 15, 2013; 11:00 a.m.
`
` 3
`
` 4 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: This is Judge Arbes,
`
` 5 Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and this is a
`
` 6 conference call in the Case No. IPR2013-00071.
`
` 7 Do we have counsel for the petitioner,
`
` 8 Avaya, on the line?
`
` 9 MR. SANOK: Yes, we do, your Honors. This
`
`10 is Jeff Sanok.
`
`11 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: And counsel for any of
`
`12 the other petitioners; Dell?
`
`13 MR. SCHEER: Michael Scheer from Winston &
`
`14 Strawn for Dell.
`
`15 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Are counsel for any of
`
`16 the other petitioners on the line?
`
`17 MR. LAVENUE: Yes, your Honor. For Sony,
`
`18 Lionel Lavenue and Theresa Wisenberger.
`
`19 MR. HAWKINS: Yes, your Honor. This is
`
`20 Charles Hawkins with McDermott, Will & Emery for HP,
`
`21 and with me is Ray Gabriel.
`
`22 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Great.
`
`23 And counsel for the patent owner,
`
`24 Network-1?
`
`25 MR. DOVEL: This is Greg Dovel. With me is
`
`6
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 Charles Wieland.
`
` 2 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Thank you.
`
` 3 Okay. The conference call -- and I
`
` 4 understand we have a court reporter on the line
`
` 5 today.
`
` 6 THE REPORTER: Yes. This is Tracy Mafi
`
` 7 from Barkley Court Reporters in Orange County,
`
` 8 California.
`
` 9 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Great. Thank you.
`
`10 The conference call today was requested by
`
`11 the patent owner, Network-1, to seek authorization
`
`12 to file a second motion to amend. So we'll hear
`
`13 here from the patent owner first and then the
`
`14 petitioners.
`
`15 Patent owner, would you like to go first
`
`16 and explain why you believe another motion to amend
`
`17 is warranted.
`
`18 MR. DOVEL: Yes, your Honor. This is
`
`19 Greg Dovel. We seek to revise the motion to amend
`
`20 to add the word "level" into the proposed new step.
`
`21 The proposed substitute Claim 10 includes a step of
`
`22 determining whether the access device is capable of
`
`23 accepting remote power based on the sensed voltage.
`
`24 The modification we seek would add the word
`
`25 "level" at the end so that the step would end with
`
`7
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 the "sensed voltage level" rather than the "sensed
`
` 2 voltage."
`
` 3 The reason for this proposed revision is in
`
` 4 the cross-examination testimony of our expert that
`
` 5 was taken a week ago Monday, he was asked questions
`
` 6 about whether there was any difference between
`
` 7 sensing a voltage level and the sensed voltage.
`
` 8 And what this referred to is in the
`
` 9 proposed claim there's a step of sensing a voltage
`
`10 level on the data signaling pair, and then in the
`
`11 next step we're doing a determining step and it's
`
`12 based on the sensed voltage. So the difference is
`
`13 between sensing a voltage level and then the sensed
`
`14 voltage; the difference in wording.
`
`15 So based on the questioning, it appeared
`
`16 that petitioners were suggesting -- or are
`
`17 suggesting a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase
`
`18 "the sensed voltage."
`
`19 To eliminate that potential issue we want
`
`20 to revise the proposed claim so that it reads "the
`
`21 sensed voltage level" rather than "the sensed
`
`22 voltage."
`
`23 Under CFR 42.121(c), the Board can
`
`24 authorize an additional motion to amend when there's
`
`25 good cause. And we think there's good cause here,
`
`8
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 your Honors, for the following reason: First of
`
` 2 all, we moved promptly after the issue came to our
`
` 3 attention.
`
` 4 Second of all, this is a minor change. The
`
` 5 proposed revision would be implemented by simply in
`
` 6 our existing motion papers we'd file a revised
`
` 7 motion that would just insert the word "level" after
`
` 8 "the sensed voltage" wherever it appears in the
`
` 9 motion. I think it appears about a dozen times.
`
`10 It wouldn't be any changes to the
`
`11 substantive arguments or the explanations in that
`
`12 motion. There wouldn't be any changes at all to our
`
`13 expert's declaration testimony.
`
`14 We note that in another proceeding CVM-5,
`
`15 paper 44, the Board allowed a revised motion to
`
`16 amend, and one of the points that was made there was
`
`17 that correcting instances of lack of formal
`
`18 antecedent basis did not change the scope of the
`
`19 proposed substitute claims, and that was considered
`
`20 a minor amendment, and the Board then authorized the
`
`21 filing of the revised motion to amend nunc pro tunc.
`
`22 In addition, we've inquired of a prejudice
`
`23 to the petitioners, and they have not identified any
`
`24 prejudice for us. It would eliminate, if anything,
`
`25 a potential issue. They've already examined our
`
`9
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 expert where he's explained his view that those
`
` 2 words don't have any different meaning as he's
`
` 3 interpreted them in the claims. And it would be
`
` 4 easy for them to address this change since it's so
`
` 5 minor.
`
` 6 Unless the Board has any further questions,
`
` 7 I'll stop for now.
`
` 8 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. The decision
`
` 9 that you cited the, CVM-2012-5 -- what paper number
`
`10 was that again?
`
`11 MR. DOVEL: It's paper 44. Let me see. It
`
`12 might have been CVM-2013-5. Let me just check that.
`
`13 CVM-2013-5.
`
`14 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. Thank you.
`
`15 Before we hear from the petitioner, one
`
`16 question that the panel has is why this scenario
`
`17 differs from any other case where the Board has a
`
`18 sequence of procedures, the patent owner files their
`
`19 motion to amend, the petitioner then files an
`
`20 opposition, and the patent owner has a chance to
`
`21 reply.
`
`22 It seems to us that in very many cases the
`
`23 petitioner will raise some issue or present some
`
`24 argument as to why the amendments are not proper or
`
`25 are insufficient to overcome the prior art, and then
`
`10
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 the patent owner has a chance to reply to those
`
` 2 arguments; but that doesn't necessarily mean that a
`
` 3 second motion to amend is warranted.
`
` 4 Why do you believe that this situation is
`
` 5 different from any other case where that occurs?
`
` 6 MR. DOVEL: Well, your Honor, we're raising
`
` 7 this at an early -- the earliest stage that it came
`
` 8 to our attention to eliminate the issue of
`
` 9 antecedent basis. We certainly are prepared to
`
`10 argue why there isn't an issue, why it shouldn't
`
`11 matter, why the existing wording works fine; but
`
`12 eliminating the issue altogether would seem to be
`
`13 the easier course.
`
`14 So when we're proposing a simple, very
`
`15 minor amendment to eliminate an issue, not change
`
`16 the scope or meaning of the claims, we think that
`
`17 should be warranted.
`
`18 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. Can we hear from
`
`19 the petitioner, Avaya?
`
`20 MR. SANOK: Thank you, your Honors.
`
`21 Before I address the issues, I do just want
`
`22 to make clear for the record that in our
`
`23 meet-and-confer we did express the extreme prejudice
`
`24 that would be affecting the petitioners were this
`
`25 additional amendment to be allowed.
`
`11
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 But at this late stage, under the
`
` 2 particular Rule 42.121, an additional motion can
`
` 3 only be authorized with good cause. Both the rule
`
` 4 itself, as well as the Trial Practice Guide, give
`
` 5 essentially guidance there. One of which, of
`
` 6 course, is whether the Petitioner has basically
`
` 7 submitted any supplemental information, which we
`
` 8 have not, so that is not applicable here.
`
` 9 The second is whether this is correcting a
`
`10 simple and obvious typographical error, and that is
`
`11 not at all the case here. Frankly, the choice of
`
`12 whether to use the term "voltage" or "voltage level"
`
`13 was very purposeful and very intentional on the part
`
`14 of Network-1. It -- and to that extent we certainly
`
`15 take exception to their argument that this is the
`
`16 earliest point at which it came to their attention.
`
`17 As Mr. Dovel has noted, that term was used
`
`18 consistently as "voltage" numerous times within
`
`19 their amendment, initial motion to amend, as well as
`
`20 their argumentation, and their expert supporting
`
`21 declaration.
`
`22 So this was a purposeful and intentional
`
`23 word choice. And I think it's made clear that using
`
`24 the simple term "voltage" versus the more narrow
`
`25 term "voltage level" is a clear distinction and
`
`12
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 certainly broadening, as the Board would understand.
`
` 2 If you're deleting "voltage level" and replacing it
`
` 3 by "voltage," "voltage" is a broader terminology.
`
` 4 So the -- when this issue was first raised
`
` 5 by Network-1, it was following the cross-examination
`
` 6 of their declarant in the trial testimony, and as it
`
` 7 was raised with the petitioner, or at least
`
` 8 petitioner Avaya, Network-1 was clear, and they
`
` 9 said, you know, we do not agree there is any defect
`
`10 in the language, and that should be the end of the
`
`11 matter. They themselves don't believe there's any
`
`12 problem with it; and, therefore, they have no good
`
`13 cause.
`
`14 But there certainly is prejudice and
`
`15 extreme prejudice to Petitioner in this case. We
`
`16 are essentially a few days away from requiring that
`
`17 our oppositions and replies are filed.
`
`18 And as the P.T.A.V. certainly would
`
`19 understand the limitation that they're seeking to
`
`20 add, which has the broader term "voltage," would
`
`21 essentially encompass more prior art than would be
`
`22 the case with a narrower term.
`
`23 Now, keep in mind, you know, this is the
`
`24 same case in which the patent owner, Network-1, has
`
`25 spent tremendous portions of its argument on trying
`
`13
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 to come up with a very narrow meaning for the simple
`
` 2 word "on," o-n, which is a two-letter word in the
`
` 3 claim, and they support that with pages and pages of
`
` 4 expert testimony and explanation to craft a very
`
` 5 narrow interpretation for the word "on."
`
` 6 Here they now, you know, want to amend
`
` 7 and -- propose an additional amendment, I should
`
` 8 say, with a different phrase in here which includes
`
` 9 "voltage level," and certainly would make arguments
`
`10 on the meaning of that. We sort of shudder to think
`
`11 with a five-letter word what they can do.
`
`12 So the bottom line here is that it would be
`
`13 very prejudicial at this stage for Avaya and/or the
`
`14 other petitioners to have to respond to an
`
`15 additional amendment. The rules do not call for it.
`
`16 They've shown no good cause, and this doesn't fit
`
`17 with any -- in any of the exceptions. And I
`
`18 believe, as your Honors have already inquired, you
`
`19 know, they can address this in their reply.
`
`20 Unless you have any questions, that's all
`
`21 we have at this point.
`
`22 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Thank you.
`
`23 Couple of questions. Looking at the
`
`24 amendment proposed in the motion to amend -- the
`
`25 motion to amend, "Determining whether the access
`
`14
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 device is capable of accepting remote power based on
`
` 2 the sensed voltage." The next limitation is
`
` 3 "Controlling power supplied by" -- and we're looking
`
` 4 at Claim 10.
`
` 5 "Controlling power supplied by secondary
`
` 6 power source to said access device in response
`
` 7 to a preselected condition of said voltage
`
` 8 levels."
`
` 9 Assuming we understood the petitioner's
`
`10 position correctly is that -- those two things do
`
`11 not refer to the same thing, "sensed voltage" and
`
`12 "said voltage level"; is that right?
`
`13 MR. DOVEL: The "said voltage level" refers
`
`14 back to the "sensed voltage level." The sensed
`
`15 voltage is the voltage that is sensed when sensing
`
`16 that voltage level, so they would refer to the same
`
`17 thing.
`
`18 In other words, when it says "the sensed
`
`19 voltage," that's referring to the voltage that is
`
`20 sensed in the previous step, the sensed voltage
`
`21 level.
`
`22 MR. SANOK: This is the petitioner, Avaya.
`
`23 That was the patent owner speaking.
`
`24 MR. DOVEL: Yes.
`
`25 MR. SANOK: But from Avaya's standpoint,
`
`15
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 the broader step that they're proposing of
`
` 2 determining whether the access device is capable of
`
` 3 accepting a remote power based on the sensed
`
` 4 voltage, that is, you know, essentially a very
`
` 5 purposeful selection they made. Probably not so
`
` 6 much for purposes of the IPR, but we suspect
`
` 7 because, as their expert did confirm, others of
`
` 8 skill in the art have taken the narrower view of
`
` 9 "voltage level" than perhaps he would, and they were
`
`10 trying to address that here so that they can
`
`11 maintain their -- I think try to develop a stronger
`
`12 infringement position in the District Court
`
`13 litigations.
`
`14 Now, that's obviously our view; but this
`
`15 certainly wasn't a mistake. Their expert confirmed
`
`16 it wasn't. Their expert essentially said that, you
`
`17 know, there could be differences of interpretation
`
`18 here. And as a result of that, you know, our
`
`19 response is based on that. And it certainly comes
`
`20 in to play in terms of the combinations to be
`
`21 proposed for why this additional amended claim is
`
`22 still invalid -- or unpatentable, I should say
`
`23 precisely, over the prior art.
`
`24 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. A couple more
`
`25 questions for both parties. One, directed to the
`
`16
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 petitioner, the date for the petitioner's opposition
`
` 2 to the motion to amend is October 22nd. The parties
`
` 3 haven't negotiated a different date for that; is
`
` 4 that right?
`
` 5 MR. SANOK: We have not, your Honors. And
`
` 6 as you no doubt recall, you know, that date itself
`
` 7 was extended following the patent owner's late
`
` 8 supply of lots and lots of expert testimony on the
`
` 9 validity of these claims.
`
`10 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. And the
`
`11 deposition of Dr. Nox has already been completed in
`
`12 which he was -- he was asked about the amendments
`
`13 proposed in the motion to amend; is that correct?
`
`14 MR. SANOK: That is correct.
`
`15 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. One last
`
`16 question for the patent owner. You were proposing
`
`17 in your revised or second motion to amend to change
`
`18 that first limitation so it would read:
`
`19 "Determining whether the access device is capable of
`
`20 accepting power based on the sensed voltage level";
`
`21 is that right?
`
`22 MR. DOVEL: That is correct. Right.
`
`23 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. So what you're
`
`24 proposing is that that would -- that "the sensed
`
`25 voltage level" would refer to the same thing as the
`
`17
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 "said voltage level" in the next limitation. Do I
`
` 2 have that -- do I understand that correctly?
`
` 3 MR. DOVEL: That's right, yes.
`
` 4 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. So right now the
`
` 5 two things -- "the sensed voltage" and "said voltage
`
` 6 level," it's your position that they don't refer to
`
` 7 the same thing, but you want to file a further
`
` 8 amendment in which they would refer to the same
`
` 9 thing?
`
`10 MR. DOVEL: No, your Honor. As it
`
`11 currently reads, "the sensed voltage" refers to the
`
`12 voltage that's sensed in the preceding step. And in
`
`13 this context when you're talking about sensing a
`
`14 voltage level on a data signaling pair, when you're
`
`15 sensing a voltage level, sensing a voltage, it's the
`
`16 same thing. It's like measuring the temperature and
`
`17 the temperature; it's the same sort of thing.
`
`18 So they do refer to the same thing, and
`
`19 that's what our expert testified to. That's why he
`
`20 didn't -- it never occurred to him that anybody
`
`21 would read them differently because they mean the
`
`22 same thing in this context.
`
`23 So we're not proposing to change it. We're
`
`24 proposing to eliminate any potential issue that the
`
`25 "sensed voltage" means something -- refers to
`
`18
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 something else other than the "sensed voltage
`
` 2 level."
`
` 3 MR. SANOK: And, your Honors, that is
`
` 4 exactly the point. They do not have any good cause
`
` 5 because they don't -- they at least on the record
`
` 6 here have said they don't believe there's any
`
` 7 difference, and yet they purposefully and
`
` 8 intentionally selected "voltage" to try and have a
`
` 9 different -- or to clarify, I guess, what others of
`
`10 skill in the art have said are the distinctions
`
`11 here, and that directly will impact our ability in
`
`12 terms of opposing their motion because the broader
`
`13 term, "voltage," certainly ensnares more prior art.
`
`14 And, you know, it certainly will be very
`
`15 pre-prejudicial at this late stage for that change
`
`16 to be allowed.
`
`17 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. The panel will
`
`18 confer briefly. Does either party have anything
`
`19 else before we go on mute?
`
`20 MR. DOVEL: Nothing from the patent owner,
`
`21 your Honor.
`
`22 MR. SANOK: Nothing from petitioner, Avaya.
`
`23 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. We will go on
`
`24 mute and be back in just a minute.
`
`25 (Pause in the proceedings.)
`
`19
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Okay. The panel has
`
` 2 returned. What we are going to do is take the issue
`
` 3 under advisement. I think we've heard both parties'
`
` 4 positions and are able to render a decision.
`
` 5 So we will issue an order tomorrow with our
`
` 6 decision on whether a second motion to amend is
`
` 7 authorized, and we'll include all the necessary
`
` 8 information in that; and if either party has any
`
` 9 questions regarding that, we can schedule another
`
`10 conference call.
`
`11 Do any of the parties have anything else to
`
`12 discuss today?
`
`13 MR. SANOK: Your Honor, since we have the
`
`14 court reporter, would it be authorized to submit the
`
`15 transcript once it's completed?
`
`16 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: Yes. And we'll put
`
`17 that in the order as well, but you should definitely
`
`18 submit the transcript as an exhibit.
`
`19 MR. DOVEL: Thank you.
`
`20 MR. SANOK: Thank you for your time.
`
`21 HON. JUSTIN ARBES: We're adjourned.
`
`22 (Teleconference session concluded at 11:25 a.m.)
`
`23 -oOo-
`
`24
`
`25
`
`20
`
`

`

`TELECONFERENCE
`
`
`
`COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`ss.
`
`) )
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
`
`I, TRACY MAFI, Certified Shorthand
`
`
`
`Reporter, Certificate No. 11850, for the State of
`
`California, hereby certify:
`
`
`
`am the court reporter that
`
`stenographically recorded the testimony in the
`
`
`.foregoing teleconference;
`
`The foregoing transcript is a true record
`
`,—
`
`
`o:
`
`the testimony given;
`
`The persons who were on line for the
`
`teleconference are set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the
`
`foregoing transcript;
`
`The court reporter transcribed the
`
`
`
`teleconference from the location of Barkley Court
`
`Reporters at 2040 Main Street, Suite 200, Irvine,
`
`California 92614, and began at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday,
`
`October 15, 2013, and ended at 11:25 a.m.;
`
`
`
`I was not disqualified under 37 CFR
`
`41.157(6)(vi).
`
`Dated: October 23, 2013
`
`
`
`TRACY MA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`BARKLEY
`Cnurl Reporters V
`
`

`

`AVAYA, INC., DELL, INC. v.
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`A
`
`ability (1)
` 19:11
`able (1)
` 20:4
`accepting (4)
` 7:23;15:1;16:3;
` 17:20
`access (5)
` 7:22;14:25;15:6;
` 16:2;17:19
`add (3)
` 7:20,24;13:20
`addition (1)
` 9:22
`additional (6)
` 8:24;11:25;12:2;
` 14:7,15;16:21
`address (4)
` 10:4;11:21;14:19;
` 16:10
`adjourned (1)
` 20:21
`advisement (1)
` 20:3
`affecting (1)
` 11:24
`again (1)
` 10:10
`ago (1)
` 8:5
`agree (1)
` 13:9
`allowed (3)
` 9:15;11:25;19:16
`altogether (1)
` 11:12
`amend (16)
` 7:12,16,19;8:24;
` 9:16,21;10:19;11:3;
` 12:19;14:6,24,25;
` 17:2,13,17;20:6
`amended (1)
` 16:21
`amendment (8)
` 9:20;11:15,25;
` 12:19;14:7,15,24;
` 18:8
`amendments (2)
` 10:24;17:12
`and/or (1)
` 14:13
`antecedent (3)
` 8:17;9:18;11:9
`Appeal (1)
` 6:5
`appeared (1)
` 8:15
`appears (2)
` 9:8,9
`applicable (1)
`
` 12:8
`Arbes (21)
` 6:4,4,11,15,22;7:2,
` 9;10:8,14;11:18;
` 14:22;16:24;17:10,
` 15,23;18:4;19:17,23;
` 20:1,16,21
`argue (1)
` 11:10
`argument (3)
` 10:24;12:15;13:25
`argumentation (1)
` 12:20
`arguments (3)
` 9:11;11:2;14:9
`art (6)
` 10:25;13:21;16:8,
` 23;19:10,13
`Assuming (1)
` 15:9
`attention (3)
` 9:3;11:8;12:16
`authorization (1)
` 7:11
`authorize (1)
` 8:24
`authorized (4)
` 9:20;12:3;20:7,14
`Avaya (6)
` 6:8;11:19;13:8;
` 14:13;15:22;19:22
`Avaya's (1)
` 15:25
`away (1)
` 13:16
`
`B
`
`back (2)
` 15:14;19:24
`Barkley (1)
` 7:7
`based (7)
` 7:23;8:12,15;15:1;
` 16:3,19;17:20
`basically (1)
` 12:6
`basis (3)
` 8:17;9:18;11:9
`Board (7)
` 6:5;8:23;9:15,20;
` 10:6,17;13:1
`Both (3)
` 12:3;16:25;20:3
`bottom (1)
` 14:12
`briefly (1)
` 19:18
`broadening (1)
` 13:1
`broader (4)
` 13:3,20;16:1;
` 19:12
`
`C
`
`California (2)
` 6:1;7:8
`call (5)
` 6:6;7:3,10;14:15;
` 20:10
`came (3)
` 9:2;11:7;12:16
`can (7)
` 8:23;11:18;12:2;
` 14:11,19;16:10;20:9
`capable (4)
` 7:22;15:1;16:2;
` 17:19
`Case (7)
` 6:6;10:17;11:5;
` 12:11;13:15,22,24
`cases (1)
` 10:22
`cause (6)
` 8:25,25;12:3;
` 13:13;14:16;19:4
`certainly (10)
` 11:9;12:14;13:1,
` 14,18;14:9;16:15,19;
` 19:13,14
`CFR (1)
` 8:23
`chance (2)
` 10:20;11:1
`change (7)
` 9:4,18;10:4;11:15;
` 17:17;18:23;19:15
`changes (2)
` 9:10,12
`Charles (2)
` 6:20;7:1
`check (1)
` 10:12
`choice (2)
` 12:11,23
`cited (1)
` 10:9
`Claim (6)
` 7:21;8:9,20;14:3;
` 15:4;16:21
`claims (4)
` 9:19;10:3;11:16;
` 17:9
`clarify (1)
` 19:9
`clear (4)
` 11:22;12:23,25;
` 13:8
`combinations (1)
` 16:20
`completed (2)
` 17:11;20:15
`concluded (1)
` 20:22
`condition (1)
`
` 15:7
`confer (1)
` 19:18
`conference (4)
` 6:6;7:3,10;20:10
`confirm (1)
` 16:7
`confirmed (1)
` 16:15
`considered (1)
` 9:19
`consistently (1)
` 12:18
`context (2)
` 18:13,22
`Controlling (2)
` 15:3,5
`correcting (2)
` 9:17;12:9
`correctly (2)
` 15:10;18:2
`counsel (4)
` 6:7,11,15,23
`County (1)
` 7:7
`Couple (2)
` 14:23;16:24
`course (2)
` 11:13;12:6
`court (4)
` 7:4,7;16:12;20:14
`craft (1)
` 14:4
`cross-examination (2)
` 8:4;13:5
`currently (1)
` 18:11
`CVM-2012-5 (1)
` 10:9
`CVM-2013-5 (2)
` 10:12,13
`CVM-5 (1)
` 9:14
`
`D
`
`data (2)
` 8:10;18:14
`date (3)
` 17:1,3,6
`days (1)
` 13:16
`decision (3)
` 10:8;20:4,6
`declarant (1)
` 13:6
`declaration (2)
` 9:13;12:21
`defect (1)
` 13:9
`definitely (1)
` 20:17
`deleting (1)
`
`TELECONFERENCE
`October 15, 2013
`
` 13:2
`Dell (2)
` 6:12,14
`deposition (1)
` 17:11
`determining (5)
` 7:22;8:11;14:25;
` 16:2;17:19
`develop (1)
` 16:11
`device (5)
` 7:22;15:1,6;16:2;
` 17:19
`difference (4)
` 8:6,12,14;19:7
`differences (1)
` 16:17
`different (5)
` 10:2;11:5;14:8;
` 17:3;19:9
`differently (1)
` 18:21
`differs (1)
` 10:17
`directed (1)
` 16:25
`directly (1)
` 19:11
`discuss (1)
` 20:12
`distinction (1)
` 12:25
`distinctions (1)
` 19:10
`District (1)
` 16:12
`doubt (1)
` 17:6
`Dovel (14)
` 6:25,25;7:18,19;
` 10:11;11:6;12:17;
` 15:13,24;17:22;18:3,
` 10;19:20;20:19
`dozen (1)
` 9:9
`Dr (1)
` 17:11
`
`E
`
`earliest (2)
` 11:7;12:16
`early (1)
` 11:7
`easier (1)
` 11:13
`easy (1)
` 10:4
`either (2)
` 19:18;20:8
`eliminate (5)
` 8:19;9:24;11:8,15;
` 18:24
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Barkley Court Reporters
`
`(1) ability - eliminate
`
`

`

`AVAYA, INC., DELL, INC. v.
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`eliminating (1)
` 11:12
`else (3)
` 19:1,19;20:11
`Emery (1)
` 6:20
`encompass (1)
` 13:21
`end (3)
` 7:25,25;13:10
`ensnares (1)
` 19:13
`error (1)
` 12:10
`essentially (5)
` 12:5;13:16,21;
` 16:4,16
`exactly (1)
` 19:4
`examined (1)
` 9:25
`exception (1)
` 12:15
`exceptions (1)
` 14:17
`exhibit (1)
` 20:18
`existing (2)
` 9:6;11:11
`expert (9)
` 8:4;10:1;12:20;
` 14:4;16:7,15,16;
` 17:8;18:19
`expert's (1)
` 9:13
`explain (1)
` 7:16
`explained (1)
` 10:1
`explanation (1)
` 14:4
`explanations (1)
` 9:11
`express (1)
` 11:23
`extended (1)
` 17:7
`extent (1)
` 12:14
`extreme (2)
` 11:23;13:15
`
`F
`
`few (1)
` 13:16
`file (3)
` 7:12;9:6;18:7
`filed (1)
` 13:17
`files (2)
` 10:18,19
`filing (1)
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
` 9:21
`fine (1)
` 11:11
`first (5)
` 7:13,15;9:1;13:4;
` 17:18
`fit (1)
` 14:16
`five-letter (1)
` 14:11
`following (3)
` 9:1;13:5;17:7
`formal (1)
` 9:17
`Frankly (1)
` 12:11
`further (2)
` 10:6;18:7
`
`G
`
`Gabriel (1)
` 6:21
`good (6)
` 8:25,25;12:3;
` 13:12;14:16;19:4
`Great (2)
` 6:22;7:9
`Greg (2)
` 6:25;7:19
`guess (1)
` 19:9
`guidance (1)
` 12:5
`Guide (1)
` 12:4
`
`H
`
`HAWKINS (2)
` 6:19,20
`hear (3)
` 7:12;10:15;11:18
`heard (1)
` 20:3
`HON (20)
` 6:4,11,15,22;7:2,9;
` 10:8,14;11:18;
` 14:22;16:24;17:10,
` 15,23;18:4;19:17,23;
` 20:1,16,21
`Honor (7)
` 6:17,19;7:18;11:6;
` 18:10;19:21;20:13
`Honors (6)
` 6:9;9:1;11:20;
` 14:18;17:5;19:3
`HP (1)
` 6:20
`
`I
`
`identified (1)
`
` 9:23
`impact (1)
` 19:11
`implemented (1)
` 9:5
`include (1)
` 20:7
`includes (2)
` 7:21;14:8
`information (2)
` 12:7;20:8
`infringement (1)
` 16:12
`initial (1)
` 12:19
`inquired (2)
` 9:22;14:18
`insert (1)
` 9:7
`instances (1)
` 9:17
`insufficient (1)
` 10:25
`intentional (2)
` 12:13,22
`intentionally (1)
` 19:8
`interpretation (2)
` 14:5;16:17
`interpreted (1)
` 10:3
`into (1)
` 7:20
`invalid (1)
` 16:22
`IPR (1)
` 16:6
`IPR2013-00071 (1)
` 6:6
`Irvine (1)
` 6:1
`issue (12)
` 8:19;9:2,25;10:23;
` 11:8,10,12,15;13:4;
` 18:24;20:2,5
`issues (1)
` 11:21
`
`J
`
`Jeff (1)
` 6:10
`Judge (1)
` 6:4
`JUSTIN (20)
` 6:4,11,15,22;7:2,9;
` 10:8,14;11:18;
` 14:22;16:24;17:10,
` 15,23;18:4;19:17,23;
` 20:1,16,21
`
`K
`
`keep (1)
` 13:23
`
`L
`
`lack (2)
` 8:17;9:17
`language (1)
` 13:10
`last (1)
` 17:15
`late (3)
` 12:1;17:7;19:15
`LAVENUE (2)
` 6:17,18
`least (2)
` 13:7;19:5
`level (25)
` 7:20,25;8:1,7,10,
` 13,21;9:7;12:12,25;
` 13:2;14:9;15:12,13,
` 14,16,21;16:9;17:20,
` 25;18:1,6,14,15;19:2
`levels (1)
` 15:8
`limitation (4)
` 13:19;15:2;17:18;
` 18:1
`line (4)
` 6:8,16;7:4;14:12
`Lionel (1)
` 6:18
`litigations (1)
` 16:13
`Looking (2)
` 14:23;15:3
`lots (2)
` 17:8,8
`
`M
`
`Mafi (1)
` 7:6
`maintain (1)
` 16:11
`many (1)
` 10:22
`matter (2)
` 11:11;13:11
`McDermott (1)
` 6:20
`mean (2)
` 11:2;18:21
`meaning (4)
` 10:2;11:16;14:1,
` 10
`means (1)
` 18:25
`measuring (1)
` 18:16
`meet-and-confer (1)
` 11:23
`Michael (1)
`
`TELECONFERENCE
`October 15, 2013
`
` 6:13
`might (1)
` 10:12
`mind (1)
` 13:23
`minor (4)
` 9:4,20;10:5;11:15
`minute (1)
` 19:24
`mistake (1)
` 16:15
`modification (1)
` 7:24
`Monday (1)
` 8:5
`more (4)
` 12:24;13:21;
` 16:24;19:13
`motion (21)
` 7:12,16,19;8:24;
` 9:6,7,9,12,15,21;
` 10:19;11:3;12:2,19;
` 14:24,25;17:2,13,17;
` 19:12;20:6
`moved (1)
` 9:2
`much (1)
` 16:6
`mute (2)
` 19:19,24
`
`N
`
`narrow (3)
` 12:24;14:1,5
`narrower (2)
` 13:22;16:8
`necessarily (1)
` 11:2
`necessary (1)
` 20:7
`negotiated (1)
` 17:3
`Network-1 (6)
` 6:24;7:11;12:14;
` 13:5,8,24
`new (1)
` 7:20
`next (3)
` 8:11;15:2;18:1
`note (1)
` 9:14
`noted (1)
` 12:17
`Nox (1)
` 17:11
`number (1)
` 10:9
`numerous (1)
` 12:18
`nunc (1)
` 9:21
`
`Barkley Court Reporters
`
`(2) eliminating - nunc
`
`

`

`AVAYA, INC., DELL, INC. v.
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`TELECONFERENCE
`October 15, 2013
`
`O
`
`obvious (1)
` 12:10
`obviously (1)
` 16:14
`occurred (1)
` 18:20
`occurs (1)
` 11:5
`October (2)
` 6:2;17:2
`o-n (1)
` 14:2
`once (1)
` 20:15
`one (5)
` 9:16;10:15;12:5;
` 16:25;17:15
`only (1)
` 12:3
`oOo- (1)
` 20:23
`opposing (1)
`