throbber
(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:238)º
`
` 1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` 2 TYLER DIVISION
` 3 VIRNETX, INC. )
` ) DOCKET NO. 6:10cv417
` 4 -vs- )
` ) Tyler, Texas
` 5 ) 9:00 a.m.
` APPLE, INC. ) October 18, 2012
` 6
` 7 TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONARD DAVIS,
` 8 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
` 9
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` 10
` 11 (SEE SIGN-IN SHEETS DOCKETED IN THE MINUTES OF THE CASE.)
` 12
` 13
` 14
` 15 COURT REPORTER: MS. SHEA SLOAN
` 211 West Ferguson
` 16 Tyler, Texas 75702
` 17
` 18 Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
` produced by a Computer.
` 19
` 20
` 21
` 22
` 23
` 24
` 25
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:238) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:238)Œ
`
` 2
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
` 2 THE COURT: Please be seated.
` 3 All right. Ms. King, if you will call the case,
` 4 please.
` 5 THE CLERK: Court calls Case No. 6:10cv417, VirnetX,
` 6 Inc., v. Apple, Inc.
` 7 THE COURT: Announcements.
` 8 MR. CAWLEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Douglas
` 9 Cawley for the Plaintiff VirnetX. With me today to argue on
` 10 some motions, assuming the Court asks for argument on them,
` 11 Mr. Brad Caldwell, Mr. Jason Cassady, Mr. Austin Curry, and
` 12 Mr. Daniel Pearson. We also have with us Robert Parker and
` 13 Chris Bunt. We are ready to proceed.
` 14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
` 15 Defendants?
` 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, Danny Williams for Apple.
` 17 I have with me today Mr. Drew Kim, Matt Rodgers, Scott
` 18 Woloson, Mr. Chris Cravey, Mr. Steve Edwards; and I also have
` 19 with me Ms. Katie Prescott from Apple. We are ready to
` 20 proceed, Your Honor.
` 21 THE COURT: Thank you.
` 22 MR. JONES: Your Honor, for Cisco Systems, Mike
` 23 Jones. Lead Counsel, Mr. John Desmarais. Also arguing for us
` 24 will be Mr. Paul Bondor and Mr. Michael Stadnick. And also
` 25 representing Cisco Systems are John Bufe and Eric Findlay.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:237) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:238)Ø
`
` 3
` 1 THE COURT: Anybody else?
` 2 MR. WARD: Good morning, Your Honor. Johnny Ward
` 3 for Siemens. I don't think you will hear much argument from
` 4 me, but you may on a very limited issue on one motion.
` 5 THE COURT: Okay.
` 6 MR. TINDEL: Your Honor, Andy Tindel here for SAIC.
` 7 THE COURT: Anyone else?
` 8 Okay. Very well. We have a lot to do this morning,
` 9 so let's move through it. The first thing, I have the
` 10 parties' joint motion to exceed limits for exhibit and
` 11 deposition designations for trial, and I don't have a problem
` 12 with that. So that is granted. I would encourage you to try
` 13 to limit your exhibits and depositions, but I know you will.
` 14 All right. Then we have various motions here. I
` 15 think I would like to take up, first, Defendant Cisco and
` 16 Apple's motion to stay, pending ongoing reexamination
` 17 proceedings, Docket No. 477.
` 18 MR. STADNICK: Good morning, Your Honor. Michael
` 19 Stadnick for Cisco Systems. Your Honor, we are preparing to
` 20 go to trial on scores of patent claims that currently stand
` 21 rejected in the Patent Office.
` 22 And it is not just an initial rejection. For 110
` 23 out of 136 claims that remain asserted in this case, we have
` 24 reached the stage, which is called an "action closing
` 25 prosecution." There are inter partes reexaminations. What
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:236) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:238)Ł
`
` 4
` 1 that means is we filed reexamination requests. The Patent
` 2 Office considered them. They rejected the patent claims.
` 3 Both VirnetX and the defendants had the opportunity to be
` 4 heard by the Patent Office. The Patent Office considered
` 5 those arguments, and then they rejected the claims again.
` 6 And for at least 110 out of the 136 claims of the
` 7 patents-in-suit that are asserted, we have now reached the
` 8 stage where we are essentially ready to go up on appeal,
` 9 barring some unsuspected circumstances in the Patent Office.
` 10 So the rejections of all but four of the 136 patents-in-suit
` 11 are not initial rejections.
` 12 They are also not narrow rejections. For most of
` 13 the rejected claims of the patents-in-suit, we are talking
` 14 about a situation where the individual-rejected claims are
` 15 rejected over numerous independent grounds, 10 separate
` 16 grounds of validity. In some cases 12, 15, up to 19 separate
` 17 grounds of invalidity for some of the patents-in-suit, some of
` 18 the asserted claims.
` 19 So what does that mean for the trial? If we move
` 20 forward with trial now, we know two things. First of all, it
` 21 is almost certain that at least some of the 136 claims that
` 22 are asserted in the case are going to be cancelled as a result
` 23 of the reexamination proceedings; so that we will potentially
` 24 waste time litigating claims that will ultimately be
` 25 cancelled.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» º –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:238)(cid:231)
`
` 5
` 1 Even if that doesn't take place, given the number
` 2 and nature -- the scope of the rejections in the Patent
` 3 Office, in order for VirnetX to manage to salvage some of
` 4 those claims to avoid invalidation, they are going to have to
` 5 either amend the claims or make some arguments to get around
` 6 the prior art, and those arguments are going to have
` 7 consequences on the scope of the claims.
` 8 That is not mere speculation. We know that is the
` 9 case because we have seen it actually with these very patents.
` 10 As Your Honor is aware, there was a previous case involving
` 11 some of these patents against Microsoft.
` 12 In that litigation Your Honor construed the claims
` 13 of at least two of the patents-in-suit in here. That case
` 14 went to trial, and VirnetX got a verdict of infringement
` 15 against Microsoft and ultimately settled.
` 16 Within months of that settlement, VirnetX is in the
` 17 Patent Office on a reexamination that was then pending. Their
` 18 claims were rejected. In order to salvage those claims, in
` 19 order to avoid invalidation, they had to make narrowing
` 20 arguments on very important claim allegations, including
` 21 "virtual private network."
` 22 We then moved forward into this litigation. VirnetX
` 23 came back at the Court, and they wanted to switch back and go
` 24 back to the broad construction that was applied in the
` 25 Microsoft case. And we had a claim construction, and Your
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Œ –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)(cid:240)
`
` 6
` 1 Honor considered what happened in the earlier reexamination
` 2 proceeding and correctly narrowed their claims.
` 3 So the claims that are in this litigation now, even
` 4 though they are nominally the same claims that were in the
` 5 Mircrosoft case are narrower in scope. You had a jury
` 6 verdict -- or there was a jury verdict in the Microsoft case.
` 7 The claims are narrower than they were in the Microsoft case.
` 8 So we know that what happens in the reexamination
` 9 proceedings can impact the scope of the asserted claims.
` 10 It also happened again in this very litigation.
` 11 Your Honor had a claim construction hearing in this case in
` 12 January of this year, construed the claims of the
` 13 patents-in-suit based upon the intrinsic record as it existed
` 14 at that time, and issued a Markman ruling in April.
` 15 The trouble is in the interim in the reexamination
` 16 proceedings that we are talking about today, VirnetX, again,
` 17 made arguments to narrow its claims to avoid certain prior art
` 18 to avoid invalidation on claim language, such as, "secure
` 19 communication link."
` 20 So what happened was, Your Honor issued your claim
` 21 construction ruling on that term, based upon the intrinsic
` 22 evidence as it existed in January of this year. And because
` 23 VirnetX had narrowing arguments at the Patent Office in the
` 24 interim, we were forced to come to Your Honor and ask for
` 25 reconsideration; and Your Honor had to change the claim
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ø –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)(cid:239)
`
` 7
` 1 construction that it handed down based upon the intrinsic
` 2 record as it existed in January.
` 3 So what we see here as what is going on in the
` 4 reexamination proceedings, really does impact the proper
` 5 interpretation of the claims. And that, of course, has an
` 6 impact on the infringement analysis, the invalidity analysis,
` 7 and the other issues that we will be addressing if we move
` 8 forward to trial now.
` 9 So the question is, why would -- why would we press
` 10 forward for trial at this stage? Why would we take the risk
` 11 of spending all of the resources and the expense of going
` 12 through a trial when claims might be cancelled. We might wind
` 13 up having to revisit issues because the prosecution has
` 14 changed the scope of the claims.
` 15 And if you look at the briefing, the only answer
` 16 that VirnetX offers is that we should go forward with trial
` 17 because we are ready to. We are at a stage where we are ready
` 18 to proceed with trial.
` 19 But if you look at the three-factor test that
` 20 governs motions like this, you will look at the unique
` 21 circumstances of this case and what is going on in the
` 22 reexaminations, the extent towards the claims that are
` 23 rejected, the numerous grounds for rejection, I think we need
` 24 something more than the fact that we are ready to go forward
` 25 with trial to justify the potential significant waste of time
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ł –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)(cid:238)
`
` 8
` 1 and expense.
` 2 So I would like to spend just a minute kind of
` 3 drilling down a little more in detail on where I think things
` 4 stand in the reexamination.
` 5 Would you pull up Slide 1.
` 6 There are, of course, six patents-in-suit between
` 7 the trial against Apple and the trial against Cisco. There
` 8 are reexaminations pending against all six. Some of them were
` 9 initiated by Apple. Some were initiated by Cisco. There are
` 10 actually only nine pending reexaminations because Cisco and
` 11 Apple instituted the reexams on the '151 patent -- have been
` 12 consolidated.
` 13 Next slide.
` 14 So if you look at where things stand in all of the
` 15 individual reexaminations, of the 136 total claims that are
` 16 still at issue in this case, 132 of them are rejected. Only
` 17 four have been confirmed in one of the patents, and that
` 18 patent isn't even relevant to the Apple case. Each and every
` 19 one of the claims that are at issue for the Apple trial, at
` 20 least, currently stands rejected. And 127, I believe it is,
` 21 of the 131 claims asserted against Cisco, stand rejected.
` 22 I want to go down a little bit on what the nature of
` 23 those rejections are.
` 24 Go to the next slide.
` 25 Just taking the '504 patent, for example. The
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:231) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)(cid:237)
`
` 9
` 1 patent has 60 claims; 46 of them are asserted in the
` 2 litigation. Each and every one of those asserted claims
` 3 currently stands rejected in the Patent Office. In fact, all
` 4 60 of the claims in the patent are rejected.
` 5 And they are not rejected on one or two grounds.
` 6 There are up to 19 separate independent grounds for rejection
` 7 for each claim.
` 8 And it is not just a preliminary rejection. It is
` 9 at the stage where the action includes the prosecution that I
` 10 mentioned earlier. So the Patent Office has had several
` 11 opportunities to consider contributions from both sides, weigh
` 12 the arguments, and it has now at least twice concluded that
` 13 the patents shouldn't have issues; and they shouldn't have
` 14 issued for up to 19 separate issues for each claim.
` 15 Moving on to the '211 patent, same story. 60 claims
` 16 asserted; all 60 of them stand rejected, including the 46
` 17 asserted claims in this case. Again, you have up to 19
` 18 independent grounds of rejection for each claim. And the
` 19 reexams have advanced to the stage of the ACP.
` 20 On the next slide.
` 21 '151 patent, similar story. The reexam hasn't
` 22 advanced quite as far. But, again, there are three asserted
` 23 claims. All of the claims in the patent, including the
` 24 asserted claims are rejected; and they are rejected on 10
` 25 independent grounds apiece.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:240) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)(cid:236)
`
` 10
` 1 '135 patent, similar story. 12 asserted claims.
` 2 All of the asserted claims, all of the claims in the patent
` 3 are rejected. And in this case you have up to 11 independent
` 4 grounds for rejection, and so on.
` 5 The '759 patent, likewise. Most of the asserted
` 6 claims are rejected with the exception of four of them. They
` 7 are rejected under multiple independent grounds, and they have
` 8 been rejected through the action close of prosecution stage.
` 9 Of the '180 patent, which is only asserted against
` 10 Cisco, again, all of the asserted claims stand rejected. That
` 11 one was moving through the Patent Office a little more slowly,
` 12 so it is a little more of a preliminary stage of the analysis,
` 13 but all of the claims do currently stand rejected.
` 14 I think if you look at what is going on in the
` 15 Patent Office where things stand, this is really not your
` 16 ordinary reexamination situation. It isn't your typical stay
` 17 motion.
` 18 Let's briefly turn to the legal standard, which I
` 19 know Your Honor is familiar with. There are three factors
` 20 that the Court typically considers when deciding whether to
` 21 exercise its discretion to grant the stay in situations like
` 22 this. I will take them one at a time.
` 23 The first is whether the stay will unduly prejudice
` 24 or present a tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party,
` 25 which, of course, is VirnetX here. The fact is if you look at
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:239) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)º
`
` 11
` 1 the briefing, VirnetX doesn't point to any recognizable
` 2 prejudice that will result from the stay. The only thing that
` 3 VirnetX really points to in their briefing is the fact that a
` 4 stay is going to cause some delay in the case, and that is
` 5 certainly true. That is the nature of the stay.
` 6 But if you look at the relevant authority, the delay
` 7 that accompanies the stay is not, in and of itself, sufficient
` 8 to establish prejudice that would warrant denial of the stay
` 9 motion.
` 10 That is particularly true in a situation like this
` 11 when you are dealing with a patentee that doesn't actually
` 12 practice his invention and compete in the marketplace by
` 13 practicing its invention and offer the products or services
` 14 that use the claimed technology.
` 15 That is because -- and under those circumstances any
` 16 delay can ultimately be compensated for, damages -- if damages
` 17 wind up being appropriate, patents may get out of the Patent
` 18 Office and wind up being infringed. They can secure damages.
` 19 They can secure interest, if appropriate, to compensate them
` 20 for any delay in receiving those damages.
` 21 As far as tactical advantage goes, there is no
` 22 tactical advantage being sought by the defendants here. If
` 23 you look at what happened, we filed our reexamination requests
` 24 in a timely manner. We filed them right around the same time
` 25 we served our initial invalidity contentions, consistent with
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:238) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)Œ
`
` 12
` 1 this Court's scheduling order.
` 2 There is no allegation that we have done anything
` 3 but pursue them as diligently as possible and move them
` 4 through the Patent Office as quickly as we could.
` 5 And if you need any indication that they were sought
` 6 for meritorious reason rather than for the purposes of delay,
` 7 you just have to look at what the Patent Office has done. I
` 8 mean, the sheer number of rejections for each of the asserted
` 9 claims confirms it. These are meritorious reexaminations that
` 10 have been sought for legitimate reasons rather than for the
` 11 purpose of delay.
` 12 In fact, if anybody is seeking an unfair tactical
` 13 advantage here, it is VirnetX, as we saw in the Microsoft
` 14 case. Having the District Court litigation proceed at the
` 15 same time as the reexamination proceedings, opens the door for
` 16 some mischief where a patentee can seek to apply a broader
` 17 claim construction for the purposes of infringement in the
` 18 District Court while at the same time making narrowing
` 19 arguments in the PTO to prevent the patents from becoming
` 20 invalidated. A stay will help to prevent that.
` 21 Turning to the next factor, which is the likelihood
` 22 that a stay will simplify issues for trial. Again, if you
` 23 consider where things stand in the Patent Office, where
` 24 virtually all of the 136 claims are rejected and they are
` 25 rejected for multiple, different, independent reasons; and at
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:237) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)Ø
`
` 13
` 1 least 110 of the rejections have advanced to the action
` 2 closing prosecution stage, it is very likely that the
` 3 patents -- or at least many of the asserted claims, aren't
` 4 going to make it out of the Patent Office. We can't tell
` 5 which of them now, obviously; but it seems almost certain that
` 6 a substantial number of the patents aren't going to make it
` 7 out of the Patent Office; over 10 or a dozen or 18 separate
` 8 grounds of rejection.
` 9 So if we don't have a stay, we will waste time and
` 10 resources and effort litigating patent claims that will
` 11 ultimately be canceled.
` 12 Even if some patent claims do somehow make it
` 13 through the reexamination proceedings, as we have discussed,
` 14 there is a high likelihood that they are going to be
` 15 substantially narrowed either by amendments or by arguments
` 16 that are made in the reexamination proceedings. And that
` 17 could impact -- you know, that could force us to revisit the
` 18 claim constructions we already had to on at least two separate
` 19 occasions.
` 20 It could call into question any determination that
` 21 is made by a jury on a claim construction that was rendered in
` 22 the absence of that intrinsic evidence.
` 23 So, again, moving forward with the litigation now,
` 24 while things are so far up in the air in the Patent Office,
` 25 threatens to create inefficiencies and inequities.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:236) –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)Ł
`
` 14
` 1 And then I guess the last factor that obviously has
` 2 to be considered under the three-factor test, is the stage of
` 3 litigation. There is no doubt that we are in the advanced
` 4 stage of litigation. We are relatively close to trial,
` 5 certainly in the Apple case; and we are still four months away
` 6 from the trial in the Cisco case.
` 7 Again, I would submit that, given the unique set of
` 8 circumstances in the Patent Office and the uncertainty as to
` 9 the scope of the claim and the viabilities of the patents, the
` 10 mere fact that we are prepared to go to trial isn't a
` 11 sufficient justification for the risk of expense and wasted
` 12 effort that will confront us if we move forward in the absence
` 13 of a stay.
` 14 Thank you.
` 15 THE COURT: Thank you.
` 16 Response?
` 17 MR. WILLIAMS: May I have just one minute on behalf
` 18 of Apple before VirnetX responds?
` 19 THE COURT: Yes.
` 20 MR. WILLIAMS: I just want to take one minute, if I
` 21 could, Your Honor. On the overhead, the chart, I just want to
` 22 make sure that it is very clear, of the four patents that are
` 23 asserted against Apple, two of those patents, the '211 patent
` 24 and the '504 patent each have two reexamination proceedings
` 25 going on at this time.
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)º –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:237)(cid:231)
`
` 15
` 1 And all four of those reexam proceedings with
` 2 respect to those two patents have gone to the stage of the
` 3 action closing prosecution. All of the claims stand
` 4 rejected. There are no confirmed claims in those two cases.
` 5 Of the other two patents, all of the claims stand rejected.
` 6 So insofar as it involves the patents that are
` 7 asserted against Apple, no claims have been reconfirmed; and,
` 8 in fact, all claims stand under rejections. And two of the
` 9 patents are under action closing prosecution. So I just
` 10 wanted to make sure that was clear. The only patent that has
` 11 had claims whatsoever confirmed is not asserted against Apple.
` 12 THE COURT: Okay.
` 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
` 14 THE COURT: Response?
` 15 MR. CAWLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. With the
` 16 Court's permission, I would like to spend just a couple of
` 17 minutes discussing what actually is the status and future of
` 18 the reexamination procedure before I briefly go through the
` 19 three-factor test that Your Honor has set out in the Soverain
` 20 case.
` 21 First of all, we have heard much ado about claims
` 22 asserted in this case standing rejected in the reexam. Now,
` 23 Your Honor has been down this road before in various cases,
` 24 some of which I am familiar, although with some of them I am
` 25 not sure if the Court is aware of the entire story because
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1012
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ Œ(cid:240)Ø (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:231)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)Œ –” (cid:238)(cid:239)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)(cid:240)Ø(cid:236)(cid:240)
`
` 16
` 1 some of them unfolded after the proceedings before this Court
` 2 had finished.
` 3 For example, in the i4i case, we went

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