`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Pe titione r,
`
`v .
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owne r .
`
`RPX CORPORAT ION
`Peti tione r,
`
`v.
`VI RNETX INC .
`Patent Owner .
`
`RPX CORPORAT ION
`Pe ti tioner,
`
`v .
`VI RNETX INC .
`Patent Owner .
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioner ,
`
`v.
`VI RNETX INC.
`Patent Owner .
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petit i oner ,
`
`v .
`VIRNETX I NC.
`Patent Owner .
`
`Cas e I PR2014 -00171
`Patent 6 , 502, 135
`
`Case IPR2 014-00 172
`Patent 6 , 502,135
`
`Case I PR2014-001 73
`Patent 7 ,490,151
`
`Case IPR2014-00 1 74
`Patent 7,921 , 211
`
`Case IPR2014 -0 0175
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`(Caption continues on next page)
`
`Wedn esday , January 8 , 2014
`
`2: 1 5 p.m . EST
`
`Te leconfe rence befo re the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`RPX Corporation Exhibit 1085
`RPX Corporation v. VirnetX, Inc. et al.
`Case IPR2014-00176
`
`202-220-4158
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`~, ...... -----
`
`IJ>R10l4-00 l7l -lPR201 4-00 l77; lPR2014-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`(Continued caption:)
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Pe titioner ,
`
`v .
`VIRNETX I NC .
`Patent Owne r.
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Pe t itione r ,
`
`v .
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owne r.
`
`APPLE I NC .
`Petitioner ,
`
`v .
`VIRNETX INC. AND SCIENCE
`APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL
`CORPORATION
`Patent Owner .
`
`APPLE INC.
`Pet ition e r,
`
`v .
`VIRNETX I NC . AND SCIENCE
`APPLICAT I ON INTERNATIONAL
`CORPORATION
`Patent Owne r.
`
`Cas e IPR2014 - 00 17 6
`Patent 7,418,504
`
`Case IPR20 1 4 - 00 177
`Patent 7 , 418 ,504
`
`Inte r Partes Revi ew
`No. I PR2014 - 00237
`
`Patent 8,504 , 697
`
`Inter Partes Review
`No . IPR2014 - 00238
`
`Patent 8,504,697
`
`Wedne s day , January 8 , 201 4
`2:15p . m. EST
`
`Te leconference before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`19
`
`Boa r d , the proceedi ngs being recorded stenographical ly
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`by Jonath an Wonne l l , a Registe r e d Prof essional Cou rt
`
`Reporte r c(NCRA #8 35577 ) and No t ary Public of . tn~ State
`
`of Minnesota, and transcribed under his direction .
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.Jwndersonlegalservices.com ..
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171-IPR2014-00177; IPR20!4-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`0 F
`
`C 0 U N S E 1
`
`(All participants appearing by phone)
`
`3
`
`On beha lf of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Boa r d:
`
`MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, ESQ., Administrative
`
`Pa ten t Judge
`
`STEVEN C. SIU , ESQ., Adminis trative Law
`
`J udge
`
`KARL D. EASTHOM, ESQ . , Administrative Law
`
`Judge
`
`On behalf of RPX Corporation:
`
`OLIVER R. ASHE, JR ., ESQ .
`
`Ashe P.C.
`
`11440 Isaac Newton Square North , Suite
`
`210
`
`Reston, Virginia 20190
`
`(703) 46 7- 900 1
`
`oashe@ashepc. com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`. · \i.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`.. ;~,
`
`
`
`IPR10 14-00 171-IPR10 14-00 177; IPR20 14-00237-IPR20 14-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`(Cont 'd)
`
`4
`
`On behal f of Virnetx Inc.:
`
`JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQ.
`
`ELLIOT C. COOK, ESQ.
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`
`Dunner, LLP
`
`Two Freedom Square
`
`11955 Freedom Drive
`
`Rest on , Virginia 20190 -5675
`
`(571) 203- 2700
`
`joseph .pa lys@f innegan .com
`
`elliot.cook@finnegan.com
`
`-- and
`
`NAVE EN MODI, ESQ.
`
`Finnegan, Hend e rs on , Farabow, Garrett &
`
`Dunner , LLP
`
`901 New York Avenue, N.W .
`
`Washington , D. C. 20005
`
`(202} 408-4000
`
`naveen .modi@ finneg an.com
`
`-- and --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00171-II'R2014-00177; IPR2014-00237- li'R2014-00238
`
`January R, 20 I 4 Teleconlerencc
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`(Cont'd )
`
`5
`
`On behalf o f Virnetx In c .
`
`(Con t'd )
`
`JAMES D. STEIN, ESQ.
`
`Finnegan , Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`
`Dunner, LLP
`
`3500 SunTrust Pla za
`
`303 Peachtree Street , NW
`
`Atlan ta, Georgia 30308 - 3263
`
`(404) 653 - 6400
`
`j ames . s t e in@fi nnegan.com
`
`On b eha l f of Appl e Comput ers:
`
`JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQ .
`
`JOSEPH A. MICALLEF, ESQ.
`
`Sidley, Aust in , Brown & Wood
`
`1 501 K Street , N.W,
`
`Sui te 600
`
`Washington, D. C . 20005
`
`(202) 736-8000
`
`jkushan@sid ley. com
`
`jmi cal l ef@ sidley . com
`
`-- and --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`1 2
`
`13
`
`14
`
`l ,S
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`~
`~
`
`.
`l
`~
`l
`;!
`~
`~ ,,
`~~
`~ ' E ;.
`'
`' !
`,r
`~
`
`if rr i
`
`~
`f
`' r
`·~
`·i
`1 .,
`
`~ I . . ;
`I ~ .
`
`~.
`
`~
`
`J. I
`~
`" "
`~ . r
`ti
`~ 1
`~ . . ~
`~ ~
`'
`~ . fi
`~
`I
`~
`
`202-220-4 I 58
`
`www.hendersonlegalscrvices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00171-IPR20 14-00 177; IPR20 14-00237-IPR20 14-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 T eleconterence
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`(Cont ' d)
`
`On behalf o f Appl e Computers (Cont'd)
`
`DAV ID E. MELAUGH, ESQ.
`
`App l e I nc.
`
`1 Infinite Loop
`
`Cupertino, Califo rni a 95014
`
`(408) 974-076 1
`
`ALSO PRESENT :
`
`PHOEBE NGUYEN , Legal Administ ra t o r,
`
`Ashe , P. C.
`
`JONATHAN WONNELL, Cou r t Rep orte r
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`1 4
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`6 ~
`" " u ' " :~ .•.
`1 i
`~
`~ ~
`i!
`~
`~
`t ~
`'I i!
`~
`~
`
`~
`
`,;:
`~
`~
`g
`" li " ~ £
`~ i
`§
`a
`~
`
`;I
`
`" ~ I . il
`~ . ~ . I
`" I
`
`;!
`~
`¥.
`
`~
`j
`
`202-220-4158
`
`www .henderson legalservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00 171 -IPR2014-00177; IPR20 14-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`January 8, 20 14 Teleconterence
`
`P R 0 C E E D I N G S
`
`7
`
`(2: 15 p. m. EST}
`
`JU DGE TIERNEY:
`
`Judge Tierne y o n t he
`
`l i ne.
`
`Is Judge Siu on t he l i ne?
`
`JU DGE SIU: Yes .
`
`I ' m o n t he li ne .
`
`J UDGE TIERNEY : Wel come t o the ca l l .
`
`I
`
`h ave Judge Easthom in my of fi ce so t h e pane l is al l
`
`set.
`
`I ' m going t o start o ff with a bri ef ro ll c all
`
`and make s u re t hat we have th e par t ies on t he l i ne ,
`
`keeping in mi nd tha t we h ave
`
`in my unders t a ndi ng
`
`we h ave RPX representatives , we ' re go ing to hav e
`
`Apple repr esenta tives a nd Virnetx r e p r esent atives .
`
`I ' m going to star t with RPX .
`
`Is t h e r e a
`
`r epresentat ive f r om RPX on t h e phone t oday?
`
`MR . ASHE : Yes . Th i s
`
`t h e Ol ive r Ashe .
`
`J UDGE TIERN EY: Wel come to the ca ll.
`
`MR . AS HE : Than k you .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY :
`
`I s
`
`t here a n yone e l s e
`
`wi t h you today?
`
`MR . ASHE: My ass i stant , Phoebe Ng u yen.
`
`Ot her t han that , n o .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Thank you . And then
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4 158
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00J 71 -IPR201 4-001 77; IPR2014-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`.January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`l we'll go -- the next one, the next petitioner 1 wa s
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Appl e . Do we have a repres e n t at i v e from Apple
`
`today?
`
`MR. KUSHAN: Yes, Your Honor. Thi s
`
`i s
`
`Jeff Kushan f r om Sidley Aus tin.
`
`I have with me Joe
`
`6 Micalle f, my pa rtner, a nd I al so believe David
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`1 2
`
`13
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Me l augh from Appl e i s on t he phone .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: What was the last name ?
`
`MR . KUSHAN: Me laugh, M-e-1-a-u -g-h.
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: And then l a s t ly but not
`
`least , Virnetx. Do we have a repres en tat i ve from
`
`Vi rnetx h ere today?
`
`MR. PALYS: Yes , Your Honor .
`
`It ' s
`
`Joseph Pa lys with Finnegan Hender so n f or Virnetx.
`
`And with me is Naveen Modi, Ell iott Cook and James
`
`Stein ca lling in from At l.a nta.
`
`J UDGE TIERNEY: Welc ome to the phone
`
`confere nce cal l today. For pu rposes of order g oing
`
`on fo l lowing the ca l l, I 'm just go ing to put o n th e
`
`fi rst named p e r son that we had today rather t han
`
`have a compl ete l i st. But if you need a complete
`
`list l e t me know right now .
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hcndersonlegalserviccs.com
`
`
`
`IPR10 14-00171 -IPR2014-00 177; IPR2014-00137-IPR2014-00238
`
`January S, 2014 Teleconference
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Not hearing any o bjection we 'll just go
`
`ahead and we ' ll have Mr. Ashe , Kush an and Pa l ys
`
`listed as represe ntatives fo r today along wit h
`
`othe r s and we'l l just have ot h ers.
`
`Starti ng off I d id as k f o r this ca l l
`
`6 with the p anel . We wanted t o tal k about
`
`the
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`1 2
`
`13
`
`14
`
`1 5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`scheduli ng. We did receive a couple e-mai l s
`
`r ecently from the partie s suggesti ng we broaden o u t
`
`t h e pu r p ose o f the cal l.
`
`The f irst p oint, though ,
`
`I would l ike
`
`to - -
`
`MR. PALYS : Your Honor, I rea l ly
`
`apol og i ze t o int e r rup t you.
`
`I just want to let you
`
`know tha t we have a court r eporter o n.
`
`I don ' t
`
`know if he' s iden ti f i ed hims e l f .
`
`J UDGF: TTF.RNEY: Who
`
`i s speaking, p l ease?
`
`MR . PALYS : Your Honor, this i s Joseph
`
`Palys. And I apologize f or interrupting you .
`
`I
`
`j ust wante d to make s ure you ' re aware of that .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY:
`
`I was n ot aware . And i n
`
`the futu r e could you please a l ert
`
`t he pane l before
`
`we have the call ?
`
`202-220-4 158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`ll'R20 14-00 171 -ll'R20 14-00 177; IPR20 14-00237-IPR20 14-00233
`
`January 8, 20 14 Teleconferenct
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. PALYS : Yes , si r.
`
`I apologi ze.
`
`J UDGE TIERNEY: Not a probl em.
`
`I t makes
`
`not e taking a li ttle bit easier, as you probab ly
`
`understan d .
`
`MR . PALYS:
`
`I under stand, si r. Sorry .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY :
`
`So since we do have a
`
`court reporter you'r e aware we would want to h ave a
`
`copy o f the transcript file d as an e xhibit?
`
`MR. PALYS: Mm-hmm. Yes .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. As long as we are
`
`aware of tha L
`
`MR. ASHE: Your Honor, t his is Oliver
`
`13 Ashe. To the extent that we cover a ny mat eria l
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that might be under the pro t ective order or
`
`relating to seal ed ma teria l s ,
`
`I think i t would be
`
`appropriate for that exhibit t o also be sub je ct to
`
`th at protective o r der.
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Do we have any
`
`objecti on?
`
`MR. PALYS: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. Not hearing any
`
`object i on , Mr. Palys, did you ale rt t he ot her
`
`202-220-4158
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-0017 1-IPR20 14-00177; IPR2014-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`par ties t ha t you were going t o have a court
`
`repo r t e r
`
`t oday?
`
`MR . PALYS : Ye s .
`
`J UDGE TI ERNEY: Okay.
`
`I ass ume I ' m
`
`go ing to RPX and a repr es e nta t ive from App l e . Any
`
`objectio ns ?
`
`MR . ASHE: Not fr om RPX , You r Hon or .
`
`MR. KUSHAN: Not fr om Apple .
`
`JU DGE T I ERNEY : Okay.
`
`I juste d wan t
`
`t o
`
`10
`
`make sure s ince we do have -- I do r e call t h e
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`mot ion to sea l bein g brought
`
`i n .
`
`Okay .
`
`So we will proceed with t h e
`
`unde r sta nd i ng t hat the tr ansc ript t o th e e xte nt o f
`
`if i t 's ne eded t o be fil ed tha t it wil l be f ile d a s
`
`a n exhibit. Provis i o na ll y h av e
`
`i t unde r seal just
`
`in c ase we cove r anything. At
`
`t he e nd o f the ca ll
`
`I wo uld re comme nd t h a t
`
`t he r epresenta t i ves f rom RPX
`
`and Apple chime i n ,
`
`i f they hear an yth ing t h at t h e y
`
`b e l i eve shou l d be under sea l a l ert u s so t h at we
`
`don ' t acc i denta l l y have some t hin g g o i n g into a
`
`transcr ipt that i s ma rked as publi c when i t should
`
`act u a lly be ma r ke d as p ri vate .
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hcndersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`JPR2014-00171-IPR20 14-00 177; JPR20 l4-00237-IPR20 14-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 T cleconference
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`1 5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Any comme nts on that b e fore I begi n?
`
`Going t o RPX?
`
`MR . ASHE: No . We'r e fine with t hat,
`
`Your Hono r.
`
`J UDGE TIERNEY: Any f r om Apple?
`
`MR . KUSHAN: No . We ' re f i ne wi th that
`
`procedure.
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY : Virnetx ?
`
`MR. PALYS: No , Your Honor .
`
`J UDGE TIERNEY : Okay .
`
`So t he first
`
`qu estion we h ad toda y ,
`
`I 'm go i ng t o s ta rt off with
`
`the quest i on that was posed o r i g ina l l y f or the
`
`confe r ence cal l , whi c h was sch edu ling . My
`
`u nders t a nd in g
`
`I 'm loo kin g at the reco r d -- was
`
`RPX had fi led the i r petit i ons Novembe r 20th and
`
`then App le ha d f iled petition s to patents whi ch
`
`c l aimed benefit o f certain p a tents that were
`
`c ha l lenged in the RPX petiti on s .
`
`Apple fi l i ngs we r e filed on December 6th
`
`of 2013 . And t he qu es tion we were wan ting t o p ose
`
`i s s h ould we p ut
`
`them on a -- the same or a s imila r
`
`schedul e goi ng f orward . And I wanted to pose t hat
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendcrsonlegalserviccs.corn
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00 171-IPR20 14-00 177; li'R20 14-00237-li'R20 14-00238
`
`.lanu31y 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`B
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`quest i on to the parties.
`
`I will start with Vi r netx .
`
`If you could
`
`pl e ase gi v e us your thoughts on this .
`
`MR. PALYS : Yes, Your Hono r. Thank you.
`
`This i s Jo seph Palys f or Virnetx. The issue
`
`regarding the schedule act ual l y dovetails into some
`
`of the issues t hat we ra ised in our e-mai l
`
`regarding the real part y in interest and p rivity .
`
`We think that these issue s actually af fect t he
`
`schedule in some form.
`
`And I was wonde r ing if, some l eeway with
`
`the board, if we ca n get from a high level to
`
`e xpl ain why tha t would affect that schedule I can
`
`get int o that .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Actua l ly, t he question
`
`I ' vP. posed today is simply should they be on the
`
`same schedule . And I unde rstand you ' re going to
`
`want to go and tell us what the schedul e should be ,
`
`but from a high l eve l point v i ew, do you want to be
`
`on the same schedul e o r not?
`
`MR. PALYS: Okay . Sure, Your Honor .
`
`22 Wi th respe ct to the I PRs filed by Appl e and the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`www.hendersonlegalsel\'ices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`fi'R2014-00 I 71-IPR2014-00 177; IPR2014-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`Janua1y 8, 2014 Teleconfen:ncc
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`1 6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`IPRs fi le d by RPX, we don' t
`
`t hink t hat t hey s h ould
`
`be on t he same schedule. They have different
`
`notice of fil ing dates . And, as you know, we have
`
`nine IPR matter s that we ' re dealing with.
`
`So between those two sets of matters,
`
`it ' s Vi r netx ' s position tha t they should not be on
`
`the same schedule .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: And the rat ionale just
`
`being because they were filed d if ferent dates?
`
`MR. PALYS : They are dif fer ent patents ,
`
`Your Honor. They address different issues .
`
`They -- yes, one of t h e o th er reasons, they were
`
`filed on d iffe rent dat es. They were f iled by a
`
`different party. And we think that these i ss ues
`
`coupled with -- a lot o f it is some of the
`
`varianr.P.s hP.twe.en what these patents, which have
`
`not been subject to a ny previous IPRs, were go ing
`
`to require different i ssues.
`
`Some of them there may be some overlap
`
`ther e, Your Honor , but we don ' t th i nk that warrants
`
`that they be on the same sch edul e .
`
`JUDGE TIE RNEY: Go into overlap .
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www .hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`IPR1014-00171-II'R20 14-00 177; IPR20 14-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`January 8, 20 14 Teleconference
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`(At this point the court r eporter ' s
`
`phone dropped off the conference ca ll. With the
`
`Judge's permission the result ing 40 seconds of
`
`mi ssing p r oceedings a re omitted from t h e
`
`transc ript.)
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY:
`
`amount of overlap
`
`between the two proceedin gs . For exampl e, c laim
`
`construct ions , spec ifications, understanding what
`
`they mean, one of ordinary skill i n the art, et
`
`cetera, et cetera.
`
`MR. PALYS: Yes. We ll, th ere cer ta inly
`
`i s over l ap . We're not suggesting that there isn't
`
`any overlap as far as they rely on the same
`
`specifications from ~ h A s~mA fAmi l y . But there are
`
`different claims, c l aim terms. We think that may
`
`require -- int roduce different claim constructions
`
`that are not common to the other matter.
`
`That ' s jus t to begin with.
`
`I apologize.
`
`I'm looking through my notes right now , You r Honor .
`
`So - -
`
`202-220-41 58
`
`www.hendcrsonlegalservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00 17 1 -IPR20 14-001 77; II'R2014-00237-IPR201 4-00238
`
`January 8, 20 I 4 T elccontcrence
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY:
`
`I ' m j ust cur i ous. For
`
`consistency p u rposes , wouldn' t you s a y that for
`
`wh e re the re ar e common terms being used in the
`
`c l aims, since they are going back t hrough common
`
`specification s for bene f it, that we would want to
`
`be cons istent in our dec i s i ons to institute or to
`
`not insti tute?
`
`MR. PALYS : Yeah, go ahead . My partner,
`
`Naveen Modi , wants t o chime in , Your Honor.
`
`10
`
`MR . MODI : Your Honor , th is i s Navee n
`
`11 Modi. Ma ybe I can address some of your ques tions .
`
`12
`
`13
`
`1 4
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I gene r a l ly agree with you that obviously to t h e
`
`extent c l aim te r ms are t he same across these
`
`patents they should be construed cons i stently .
`
`I
`
`guess what we're trying t o get at is that we don 't
`
`disagrP.P. wi t.h y()ll tha t there ' s o v erlap.
`
`We just thin k, you kno w,
`
`t here are
`
`',
`
`obvious l y nine pending IPRs right now and we h ave
`
`seven with RPX and two naming Apple .
`
`Just there ' s
`
`a lot of volume, you know , a lot of material here.
`
`And I think what we ' re t rying to ge t
`
`i s, t he
`
`issues , yes ,
`
`they do over l ap , but they are
`
`202-220-41 58
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendcrsonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171-IPR20 14-00177; !PR20 14-00237-!PR20 !4-00D8
`
`January S, 2014 Teleconference
`
`17
`
`~·
`
`'
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2 1
`
`22
`
`di f ferent.
`
`For example , the Apple I PRs raise a new
`
`primary reference , Wes inger , Your Honor, that ' s no t
`
`part of
`
`t he App le IPRs .
`
`So from t hat pe r spective ,
`
`the issues are diffe r ent. And that' s what we we r e
`
`getting at.
`
`I don ' t know if -- you know, I guess
`
`wha t does the board have in mind whe n you ' r e sayin g
`
`you wanted to align t he schedul es? And if you
`
`could s h ed some light to t ha t, that wou l d be
`
`he lpful .
`
`JU DGE TIERNEY: Unders t ood.
`
`I can
`
`c l ari fy . We ' re l ooking at having potential l y
`
`and this i s why we wanted to 'talk to t h e part i es
`
`today
`
`b asically the t i me for f il ing the patent
`
`owner prel iminary response should be f i l ed o n the
`
`same d a te f or a l l the p r oceedings as one opti on.
`
`And we were contemplating to try a nd keep thes e
`
`case s cons i sten t in t he ir anal ysis by the board,
`
`and t h at ' s why we're havi ng t h e d iscu ssion on t h i s
`
`point .
`
`Maybe at this point maybe i t ' s better i f
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hcndersonlegalservices.com
`
`; ·
`!
`
`1·.
`I
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00 17 1-1PR20 14-00 177; IPR20 14-00237-ll'R20 14-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`we
`
`t a l ked t o RPX and App le a nd s ee what the i r vie ws
`
`ar e a l so , becau se I thi n k we h ave you r view s
`
`under stood unless there's s omethi n g el se y ou'd l ike
`
`to say befo r e we move on .
`
`MR. PALYS :
`
`I think th a t's good , Your
`
`Honor .
`
`THE REPORTER:
`
`Judge Tie rney , sor r y to
`
`i nterrupt . This is the court reporter . And my
`
`phone cut out a li ttle bi t .
`
`I d i d n't want to
`
`interrupt .
`
`JU DGE TI ERNEY : Oka y . Wha t would you
`
`li ke to d o?
`
`THE RE PORTER:
`
`I gu ess I ' d leave tha t up
`
`t o you . The r e wa s about a two minute portion whe n
`
`I was of f the phone .
`
`JU DGE TIERNE Y:
`
`I th ink it' 3 be st we
`
`just conti nue going f o r ward instead of trying to
`
`r e c apture everyth ing, unless -- Mr. Pa l ys , would
`
`you l ike f or th e record to make a ny s tatement abou t
`
`the las t
`
`t wo minutes that may no t hav e b e en
`
`ca pt u red ?
`
`MR. PALYS : No.
`
`I thin k we ca n move on,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`www.hendersonlega lservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR10 14-00 17l -IPR10 14-00 177; 1PR20 14-00237-1PR20 14-00238
`
`January S, 2014 Teleconference
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`14
`
`1 5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`You r Honor.
`
`THE REPORTER: Sorry about that .
`
`J UDGE TIERNEY: Not a problem.
`
`Apple, I ' l l begin with you . For
`
`scheduling purposes , yours was fi led I believe a
`
`l i ttle bit l ater in time, December 6th. What a re
`
`your views on trying to have the same schedule fo r
`
`patent owner preliminary response between the
`
`two -- the t wo series of cases between Apple and
`
`RPX ' s?
`
`MR. KUSHAN : Thank you, You r Honor . Let
`
`me - - so we generally are supportive of al i gn ing
`
`these p roceedings and for some o f the reasons
`
`you ' ve a lready foreshadowed. First , you know, the
`
`disc l osure that ' s being relied on for all these
`
`pa te nts is essentially th e same part of t he same
`
`patent . They use s i mi l ar or very similar concepts
`
`and terms .
`
`While there are individual references
`
`that may be dif fe rent among some of the p etitions,
`
`there is
`
`and each of the pa t ents have been
`
`challenged by three common re ferences .
`
`Those are
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hcndersonlegalserviccs.com
`
`
`
`II'R20 14-00 171-IPR20 14-00 177; IPR20 14-00237-IPR20 14-00238
`
`January S, 2014 Teleconference
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the Aventail, Beser and Kiuchi refe rences .
`
`So there ' s a l ot of overl ap in the
`
`patentability issues t hat are go ing to b e presented
`
`and cons idered in the proceeding based on t h ose
`
`three references. And i t make a lot of sense in
`
`our v i ew t o treat t hem as what they are , which is a
`
`very clos ely re l ate d set of patents that are goi ng
`
`to present very similar pat ent
`
`i ssue s.
`
`I a l s o th i nk you shou ld be awar e
`
`t ha t
`
`there is a common expe rt used by both Apple and RPX
`
`to support their various petitions . That' s Mike
`
`Fratto. And in fact in our v i e w i t would p r obabl y
`
`be even appropri a te in the context o f
`
`t h ese c a ses
`
`to conside r a j oinder type of procedure for the
`
`va r ious proceedings gi ven the s imi lar it y of the
`
`different patents and the i ssues they present .
`
`You might a l so want to think abou t
`
`joinder i n the se n se that it would obviat e some o f
`
`the questions that h ave been raised by the iss ue
`
`tha t Virne tx is attempting to manufacture about
`
`privity be twe en App l e a nd RPX.
`
`And final ly, when it ' s app ropri ate to do
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hcndersonlegalservices.com
`
`j·
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-0017 I-IPR2014-001 77; IPR20!4-00237-IPR20 14-00238
`
`January S, 20 14 Tdcconterence
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`1 6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`so, I want t o bring your atten tion to the f act that
`
`there are pending reex aminati ons involv in g the same
`
`pat e nt s that a r e the subject of the RPX petit ions
`
`which you should have in mind , as wel l as t he f ac t
`
`that we have filed rec o n s ideratio n motions or
`
`he ar i ng requ ests on pe titions we filed on the s ame
`
`fou r patents t ha t are the s ub ject of t h e RPX
`
`pe titions.
`
`And so in our view those p etitions we
`
`fi l ed l ast summe r are essential ly sti ll o n th e
`
`tabl e for evaluat ion.
`
`J UDGE TIERNEY : And correct me if I' m
`
`wrong, but all t hose pe titio ns were denie d , that
`
`the y were not insti tuted, and t h e re q uest for
`
`he a r ing is t o c h ange those dec i sions f rom a
`
`non-in s titut e to a n inst i t ute?
`
`MR. KUSHAN: That is correct , Yo ur
`
`Hono r .
`
`JU DGE TIERNEY:
`
`So a t
`
`t hi s point
`
`i n
`
`time , we understand that t h e cases may not be
`
`compl ete ly over, but for pu rposes of today the
`
`stat us o f
`
`t he case
`
`i s tha t
`
`t h ere is not an
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www. hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00 171-IPR20 14-00177; IPR201 4-00237-I PR2014-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`1 9
`
`20
`
`2 1
`
`22
`
`inst i tution?
`
`MR . KUSHAN : That ' s correct. They ' re
`
`not i nst ituted . You know, obvi ous ly we th ink tha t
`
`there is a ve r y s trong basis for changing t hat
`
`d etermi nati on based on t he c i rcums t ances of t hose
`
`peti tions which are presen ting some what novel
`
`ques ti ons und er 315 (b), the trans ition dat e for
`
`implementing t h e Al A.
`
`JU DGE TIERNEY: And I be l i eve you're
`
`familiar with at l e ast some of t he members on the
`
`phone today are members of the pane l on those
`
`cases . The board is aware of the othe r
`
`I P r eexams
`
`and t he other IPRs that were f i led and the status
`
`of them . Could you please give us some background
`
`as to wh a t you wan t us to do with th is particular
`
`i nformation, though?
`
`MR. KUSHAN: Sure. What we'd actual l y
`
`like to see the board to consider is a moti on to
`
`transfer t he reexaminat i on proceedings over to the
`
`board. An d the reason for doing t hat is pre t t y
`
`s imp l e . Those reexams were filed back in Augus t of
`
`2011 . Each of the f ou r patent s has been subjected
`
`202-220-4158
`
`www.hendersonlcgalservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`II'R20 14-0017 I -II'R20 I 4-00 177; I PR20 14-00237-IPR2014-00238
`
`Junu~ ry S, 10 I 4 T elcconference
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`to reject i ons of all the ir cla ims fo r
`
`unpatentabi li ty on a n umber o f the grounds t hat ar e
`
`th e same as those rai sed in th e RPX and ou r prior
`
`pe t itions fi l ed in the summe r.
`
`A big problem we faced is t h e
`
`u npredictable del ays in progres sing tho se
`
`proceedings to compl etion. And we thi nk one big
`
`re ason why there h ave been del ays is th e conduct of
`
`9 Virnetx i n those cases. It may s hock you to l earn
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`tha t Vi rnetx to our count has fi l e d more tha n 45
`
`petiti ons in four proceedings, those f our
`
`reexamination proceedings .
`
`I h ave to t ell you I ' ve
`
`never see n a nyth ing like th is.
`
`We have one of t h ose proceedings si t ting
`
`wai ting -- and this is the '1 51 patent -- which has
`
`h~~n s i tt in g for over a year wi th no acti on. Th e
`
`' 135 paten t has been sitting there s ince t he summer
`
`18 with no action, waiting for PTO action .
`
`19
`
`20
`
`On the appeals t hat have act ually
`
`progressed or sta r ted on the other two patents ,
`
`21 Virnetx filed three consecutive exte nsi on of time
`
`22
`
`re qu ests just t o f ile their appeal brief .
`
`I !i
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www .henderson lcgalservices.com
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00 171 -IPR20 14-00 177; IPR20 14-00237-IPR20 14-00238
`
`January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`24 i
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY:
`
`I unders ta nd you 're
`
`saying t h a t
`
`t h ey may n ot be a s d il i g e nt as you
`
`wou l d li ke .
`
`Ple as e e xp l a i n ,
`
`t hough , why the board
`
`would exerc i se i t s dis cre t ion to tran sfer t he cases
`
`and t ake
`
`j u r i sdi c tio n . Wha t wou l d we then do ?
`
`6 Wou l d we then p r oceed to admi n i ster th e IP r eexarn
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`1 4
`
`15
`
`1 6
`
`17
`
`1 8
`
`19
`
`2 0
`
`21
`
`2 2
`
`fr om t he board b ut h a ving b oar d personne l do
`
`i t?
`
`MR. KUSHAN: Well ,
`
`two thou ghts .
`
`Fi rst ,
`
`you h ave th e a uthor it y u nd e r 31 5 (d ) to trans fe r the
`
`proceedi n gs t o t he boa r d . And the r e ason you might
`
`do tha t
`
`i s tha t
`
`t hey are add r es sing c ommon
`
`pate ntabi lity i ss u e s
`
`t o t h ose raised i n the
`
`peti tions filed by RPX. The same pat ents ar e the
`
`subject o f both the I P reexams and t h e concurrent
`
`I P p et ition s .
`
`The other var iab le t hat i5 rclcvun t is
`
`that t he s ame - - many of t h e same p at entabili ty
`
`issue s are presented . The re 's certain iss ue s in
`
`the I P r e e x ams t h at ar e n ot s ubj e ct o f
`
`t he RPX or
`
`e arl ier Apple p e ti tions , but t he re a r e a
`
`s i gn ifi c an t numbe r of i s s u es that ove r l ap on the
`
`s ame p r io r ar t o r pate ntab i li ty ground s .
`
`202-220-41 58
`
`www .henderson leg a lserviccs.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171-II'R20 14-00177; IPR20 14-00237-Il'R10 14-00238
`
`Januaty 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`As far as h ow yo u might d o that ,
`
`i t
`
`seems appropriate to esse ntial l y put t hem onto t h e
`
`foo ti ng o f an IPR p r oceeding_ That would make in
`
`our v i ew the most sense because tha t would allow
`
`you to conduct those p r oceedings in li ne wit h th e
`
`schedu l e and t he p rocedures you've a l ready
`
`e stabl i shed f or IPR pe t i t i o n s .
`
`I
`
`t h ink the commona l ity of the
`
`9
`
`patent abi l i t y is s ue s
`
`t ha t are prese n ted in both the
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`1 4
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`IP r eexams and i n the IP petitions is the hook t hat
`
`gives yo u th e author i ty to move t h e cas es over to
`
`t he b oard under 315(d).
`
`And we obviously wou ld be open to your
`
`guidance for wh e ther we wou l d be asked to p re sent
`
`or narrow some of the is s ue s to a l ign to the is sues
`
`t ha t would be presented i n the IPR . You know ,
`
`I
`
`t hink you have , as you probably recognize, a fair
`
`amoun t o f discretion to procee d i n mu ltipl e a c t i ons
`
`or mul tipl e activitie s involving th e same patent
`
`that are pendi ng before th e Of fice .
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY : Wel l ,
`
`t h e panel has
`
`h e ard the concerns. At t h is point in time becaus e
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Lega I Services, Inc.
`
`:
`
`.J
`•• ,;..,.,...;.....;'"'1:1"1:"::r.tllf!.Nr::":o:!';l.."l':$~W"..;":N~;:~r,:;'llo,.:.,...o;. •.• totOi.;,~~
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`
`
`li'JUO 14-00 171 -IPR20 !4-00 177; IPR2014-00237-ll'R20!4-0023S
`
`.January 8, 2014 Teleconference
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`we have not insti t uted the cases we decline to
`
`exe r cise jurisdiction and transfer the cases at
`
`this point in time. Should we dec ide to insti tute
`
`the cases , in parti cular the c hallenges that have
`
`been brought f orth in the peti tions, we can revi si t
`
`t he issue again during an initial co nference cal l.
`
`MR. KUSHAN: Your Honor, just very
`
`briefly, t his is ki nd of uncharted wa te rs I
`
`t h i nk.
`
`I don ' t th i nk I ' ve seen any act i vi t y b y the pane l
`
`on a transfer issue.
`
`I've seen some activity
`
`relating to consolidation issues. Would it be
`
`appr opriate f or us to a t least brief and pre sent a
`
`1 3 motion f or transfer o f
`
`t hese proceedings f or your
`
`1 4
`
`15
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`considerat i on?
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY : Wel l ,
`
`I do have a court
`
`repo r t e r. I'll e l ucidate a little bit on the
`
`reasoni ng so we can have it on the record a s to why
`
`we wi l l not at this t i me exerc i se j urisdiction. We
`
`have jurisdi ction . Exercise it in such a manner t o
`
`t r ansfer t he cases to the board .
`
`In particular at t h is point in time
`
`22 we're ear ly in the proceeding . We have not had t he
`
`202-220-4!58
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00 171-IPR20 14-00 177; WR20 14-00237-IPR20 14-00238
`
`January 8, 201 4 Teleconference
`
`27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3