UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CERTIFIED COPY
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`
`)No.
`
`IPR:
`
`IPR2014-00500
`
`vs.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`)
`)No.
`
`IPR:
`
`IPR2014—00501
`
`)U.S. Patent: 7,907,793
`
`)U.S. Patent: 7,136,392
`
`) )
`
`No.
`
`IPR:
`
`IPR2014—0050
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`)U.S. Patent: 7,382,771
`)
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
`July 17, 2014
`
`Intellectual Ventures Ex. 2003
`
`Motorola V. Intellectual Ventures
`
`IPR2014-00501
`
`DENISE HESS, CSR No. 7564
`379164
`
`BARKLEY
`
`bark|ey.com
`1972 ®
`(858) 455-5444 San Diego
`(949_) 955-0400 Irvine
`(415) 433-5777 San Francisco
`(310) 207-8000 Los Angeles
`(951) 686-0606 Riverside
`(760) 322-2240 Palm Springs
`(408) 885-0550 San Jose
`(916) 922-5777 Sacramento
`(518) 490-1910 Albany
`(347) 821-4611 Brooklyn
`(212) 808-8500 New York City
`(818) 702-0202 Woodland Hills
`(702) 366-0500 Las Vegas
`(312) 379-5566 Chicago
`(914) 510-9110 White Plains
`(516) 277-9494 Garden City
`+33 1 70 72 65 26 Paris
`+971 4 8137744 Dubai
`+852 3693 1522 Hong Kong
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 3
` MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, )
` 4 )No. IPR: IPR2014-00500
` Petitioner, )U.S. Patent: 7,907,793
` 5 )
` vs. )No. IPR: IPR2014-00501
` 6 )U.S. Patent: 7,136,392
` INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, )
` 7 )No. IPR: IPR2014-0050
` Patent Owner. )U.S. Patent: 7,382,771
` 8 ________________________________)
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11 Transcript of Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`12 Board Proceedings taken telephonically on
`
`13 Thursday, July 17, 2014, at 2040 Main Street,
`
`14 14th Floor, Irvine, California, and commencing at
`
`15 10:00 a.m., before DENISE HESS, CSR No. 7564.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 APPEARANCES:
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4 FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
` 5
` KNOBBE MARTENS
` 6 BY: BRENTON R. BABCOCK, ESQ.
` TED CANNON, ESQ.
` 7 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
` Irvine, California 92614
` 8 949.760.0404
` brent.babcock@knobbe.com
` 9
`
`10 FOR PETITIONER:
`
`11 KIRKPATRICK, TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
` BY: THEODORE BROWN, ESQ.
`12 ROB CURYLO, ESQ.
` JOHN ALEMANNI, ESQ.
`13 (Via Speakerphone)
` 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
`14 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
` 919.420.1700
`15
`
`16
`
`17 Also Present Telephonically
`
`18 Judge Kim
`
`19 Judge Kalan
`
`20 Judge Scanlon
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA;
`
` 2 Thursday, July 17, 2014
`
` 3
`
` 4 JUDGE KIM: Good afternoon. This is
`
` 5 Judge Kim. On the line with me are Judge Scanlon
`
` 6 and Judge Kalan.
`
` 7 This call is in regard to IPR2014,
`
` 8 matters 500, 501 and 504.
`
` 9 Can I get a roll call? Who is on
`
`10 the line for petitioner?
`
`11 MR. BROWN: For petitioner, this is
`
`12 Theodore Brown, Your Honor. And Rob Curylo is on
`
`13 the line. And I'm expecting John Alemanni to
`
`14 call.
`
`15 MR. ALEMANNI: And I'm on, as well. Thank
`
`16 you.
`
`17 MR. BROWN: Thank you.
`
`18 JUDGE KIM: For patent owner?
`
`19 MR. BABCOCK: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`20 For the patent owner, it's Brent Babcock. And
`
`21 with me is Ted Cannon.
`
`22 Also present is a court reporter.
`
`23 Her name is Denise Hess, H-E-S-S. She's with
`
`24 Barkley Court Reporters in Irvine. And she's
`
`25 here to transcribe the call.
`
`4
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 JUDGE KIM: Okay. Is everyone all right
`
` 2 with that?
`
` 3 MR. BROWN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` 4 JUDGE KIM: Great.
`
` 5 Well, I believe patent owner
`
` 6 requested this call, so what can we do for you?
`
` 7 MR. BABCOCK: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you
`
` 8 very much for making the time to take the call.
`
` 9 Let me give you a brief
`
`10 chronology. This chronology is identical for all
`
`11 three of the IPR's, 2014-500, 501 and 504.
`
`12 Petitioner, Motorola, filed the
`
`13 petitions on March 10th, 2014. In the petition,
`
`14 the petitioner identified the real party in
`
`15 interest as Motorola Mobility LLC, and also
`
`16 indicated that Google owned, quote, more than
`
`17 10 percent of the petitioner. That was the
`
`18 extent of the RPI, or real party in interest
`
`19 identification.
`
`20 On June 18th -- so within our 90
`
`21 days -- the patent owner filed its Patent Owner's
`
`22 Preliminary Response. And in each of the
`
`23 preliminary responses, we requested that the
`
`24 Board deny the petitions on many grounds. But
`
`25 one of the grounds that we requested denial on
`
`5
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 was the basis of the incorrect identification of
`
` 2 the real party in interest.
`
` 3 In fact, Google has been, before
`
` 4 the petition was filed, a 100-percent ownership
`
` 5 in interest of the petitioner. At least based on
`
` 6 our investigation, we believe that to be true.
`
` 7 And that was not identified correctly in the
`
` 8 petition. In fact, it was -- we believe the
`
` 9 petition was purposely misleading.
`
`10 After March 10th, the petitioner
`
`11 then, without authorization from the Board, on
`
`12 June 25th, filed a paper they entitled
`
`13 Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices. And in
`
`14 that notice, petitioner said that Google, it was,
`
`15 in fact, a real party in interest. And that was
`
`16 June 25th.
`
`17 We did not believe -- after
`
`18 looking at the rules, we did not believe that
`
`19 that filing was proper, so on July 1st, we
`
`20 contacted petitioner, raised the issue. We've
`
`21 had some correspondence back and forth between
`
`22 them since that time and ultimately culminating
`
`23 in this call.
`
`24 So what we're asking for in this
`
`25 call -- while we can get into the merits, and we
`
`6
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 would be happy to do that -- what we're asking
`
` 2 for in this call is the opportunity to file a
`
` 3 four-page supplement to each of the POPR's, the
`
` 4 Patent Owner's Preliminary Responses, to address
`
` 5 this recent filing by the petitioner. Each of
`
` 6 our POPR's was under the 60-page limit. In fact,
`
` 7 the longest one was 56 pages. So given that we
`
` 8 did not have the opportunity to see this new
`
` 9 filing when we filed our POPR -- and we would
`
`10 have addressed this filing in our POPR, had we
`
`11 had it -- we believe it would be fair and
`
`12 equitable for the Board to grant us a four-page
`
`13 supplement to our POPR's so that we could address
`
`14 the recent filing and explain to the Board in
`
`15 those four pages why the filing is improper and
`
`16 why that does not remedy the defective petition
`
`17 that now appears to be admittedly defective on
`
`18 behalf of the petitioner. And we believe the
`
`19 issue is case dispositive under the Zoll Lifecor
`
`20 v. Philips case, which is the IPR2013-00607
`
`21 before Judge Medley et al., and Judge Quinn wrote
`
`22 the opinion, this is paper 13. The
`
`23 misidentification of the RPI in the petition is a
`
`24 significant -- a significant omission and not one
`
`25 that could be overlooked readily by the Board.
`
`7
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 It's a statutory requirement. The statute
`
` 2 35USC312 (a)(2) requires that all real parties in
`
` 3 interest be identified. The promulgated rules
`
` 4 make it clear under 42.106 that the petition
`
` 5 cannot be -- cannot be considered without
`
` 6 compliance with that statutory requirement. And
`
` 7 the requirements are that the petition itself
`
` 8 contain the correct identification. A separate
`
` 9 paper filed separately is not allowed.
`
`10 This is not an amended -- an
`
`11 amendment, because that requires 21 days after
`
`12 the event takes place to file your amendment.
`
`13 This event did not occur within 21 days. In
`
`14 fact, it occurred before the petition was filed.
`
`15 The proper procedure, as we
`
`16 explained to petitioner, would have been upon
`
`17 realizing that the -- the RPI had been
`
`18 incorrectly identified, they should have
`
`19 contacted the Board, requested authorization to
`
`20 file a motion to correct the RPI identification,
`
`21 and should have filed -- if they had received
`
`22 authorization over our probable opposition, if
`
`23 they had received authorization, then they would
`
`24 have filed a corrected petition, which included
`
`25 the correct identification of the RPI, the real
`
`8
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 party in interest.
`
` 2 But they chose not to do that.
`
` 3 They filed something that was not authorized and
`
` 4 not permitted under the rules. We don't believe
`
` 5 that paper is proper.
`
` 6 Again, we're not asking the Board
`
` 7 today to expunge that paper or to necessarily
`
` 8 make a decision on the merits. We have requested
`
` 9 that relief, the relief of dismissal of the
`
`10 petition, in our POPR. We're not trying to get
`
`11 the Board to make a decision three months early
`
`12 on that request. But we think that because of
`
`13 this new recent filing, we should be permitted an
`
`14 opportunity to brief it in our four pages. We
`
`15 could have that done by the end of next week, and
`
`16 have the Board evaluate that in conjunction with
`
`17 the rest of the POPR in due course.
`
`18 And again, we believe it is case
`
`19 dispositive. So we did want to raise the issue
`
`20 with the Board. If the Board agreed with us,
`
`21 then the merits would not need to be delved into.
`
`22 And the Board could dismiss the petition on
`
`23 failure to comply with the regulations and the
`
`24 requirements of a petition.
`
`25 JUDGE KIM: Okay. I have one question for
`
`9
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 you.
`
` 2 So, you know, regularly for
`
` 3 mandatory notices, for example, when there is
`
` 4 change in counsel and stuff like that, actually,
`
` 5 our practice has been not to require
`
` 6 authorization to file those updated mandatory
`
` 7 notices. So that's where I'm sort of wondering
`
` 8 why do you not think the rules allow for updated
`
` 9 mandatory notice?
`
`10 MR. BABCOCK: So 42.8 (a)(3) requires that
`
`11 you may do that within 21 days of a change of the
`
`12 information. So certainly for change of counsel,
`
`13 if counsel changes within 21 days, you can file a
`
`14 mandatory notice without authorization.
`
`15 This is not a change that was --
`
`16 that occurred within 21 days. In fact, this was
`
`17 an incorrect petition. And the actual facts
`
`18 existed more than 90 days before the updated
`
`19 information was submitted. So the rules do not
`
`20 permit you to file an RPI 90 days plus after --
`
`21 after the petition is filed.
`
`22 If, in fact, Google had recently
`
`23 acquired Motorola Mobility, and within 21 days
`
`24 Motorola had notified the Board, we would not be
`
`25 on the call today.
`
`10
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 JUDGE KIM: I understand, okay. I
`
` 2 understand your point. Thank you.
`
` 3 All right. Petitioner, please go
`
` 4 ahead and respond.
`
` 5 MR. BROWN: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`
` 6 Theodore Brown for petitioners.
`
` 7 Our position here is that there
`
` 8 really is nothing for the Board to do or that it
`
` 9 really needs to do here.
`
`10 In the original petitions, in each
`
`11 case, as patent owner mentioned, we did identify
`
`12 Google in the real party in interest section. We
`
`13 did say it owned more than 10 percent in Motorola
`
`14 Mobility. The only complaint appears to be now
`
`15 that we did not identify Google as a, quote, you
`
`16 know, as a real party in interest.
`
`17 And we -- I mean, it was well
`
`18 known publicly. It was all over the newspapers
`
`19 that Google acquired Motorola Mobility in -- back
`
`20 in 2012. And Intellectual Ventures is in a
`
`21 number of disputes with Motorola Mobility and,
`
`22 slash, Google. And it's well known to them that
`
`23 Google owned 100 percent of Motorola Mobility.
`
`24 In fact, there were CBM's that were filed the
`
`25 same day that basically --
`
`11
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 JUDGE KIM: Counsel, if I may. Yeah,
`
` 2 that's sort of getting into the merits.
`
` 3 MR. BROWN: Okay.
`
` 4 JUDGE KIM: If you just sort of respond to
`
` 5 patent owner's -- regarding the updated mandatory
`
` 6 notice, why you oppose the four-page supplement.
`
` 7 MR. BROWN: Okay. We do not oppose the
`
` 8 four-page supplement, per se. But we just don't
`
` 9 think it's necessary.
`
`10 When -- sorry -- patent owner
`
`11 raised the issues in its preliminary response,
`
`12 apparently, there was some confusion on patent
`
`13 owner's part about who the real parties in
`
`14 interest were. And we wanted to basically just
`
`15 put -- make sure that the issue was put to rest.
`
`16 Within 21 days of the real party -- or sorry --
`
`17 the preliminary responses to put the issue to
`
`18 rest, we did the updated mandatory notices to
`
`19 explicitly name Google as a real party in
`
`20 interest.
`
`21 And I understand what the patent
`
`22 owner is requesting here is the opportunity to
`
`23 file a four-page supplement, but we just don't
`
`24 think -- our position is that that just really
`
`25 isn't necessary, because there are no issues here
`
`12
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 that are case dispositive.
`
` 2 JUDGE KIM: Okay. But you said you don't
`
` 3 oppose it either.
`
` 4 MR. BROWN: But it's not -- that's
`
` 5 correct.
`
` 6 JUDGE KIM: There is no but. I understand
`
` 7 you don't think it's necessary, but we need to
`
` 8 know whether you oppose or not in order to render
`
` 9 a decision.
`
`10 MR. BROWN: We don't oppose it, but we
`
`11 would request an opportunity to respond to it.
`
`12 MR. BABCOCK: This is Mr. Babcock. May I
`
`13 respond to that, Your Honor?
`
`14 JUDGE KIM: Go ahead. You have the last.
`
`15 MR. BABCOCK: Yeah. I think that wouldn't
`
`16 be appropriate, because I think the POPR is
`
`17 supposed to be the last word before the Board
`
`18 renders a decision.
`
`19 Had the petitioner filed this
`
`20 updated mandatory notice a week or a few days
`
`21 before we filed our POPR, we would have addressed
`
`22 it. And -- and that would have been the last
`
`23 word. There wouldn't have been an opportunity
`
`24 for the patent owner [sic, petitioner] then to
`
`25 respond to our POPR. So there is no -- I think
`
`13
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 it would be very unusual to provide any kind of
`
` 2 rebuttal for the petitioner to patent owner's
`
` 3 response.
`
` 4 We will limit our response to what
`
` 5 we -- you know, to this very narrow issue, which
`
` 6 is, again, what this additional paper means or
`
` 7 what it -- what it fails to -- what it fails to
`
` 8 satisfy in our view.
`
` 9 So we appreciate for the first
`
`10 time that they don't really oppose our POPR, but
`
`11 as you can tell, we're being pretty careful about
`
`12 the rules here. We are -- we want the Board to
`
`13 apply them strictly. And to be consistent, that
`
`14 would mean that the Board should not be
`
`15 permitting any kind of rebuttal to a POPR.
`
`16 JUDGE KIM: All right. Let me go and
`
`17 confer with my panel for a second. And you can
`
`18 go ahead and stay on the line. I don't think it
`
`19 will be super long.
`
`20 Thank you.
`
`21 (Brief recess.)
`
`22 JUDGE KIM: Thank you for staying on the
`
`23 line. The panel is back.
`
`24 So this is what we would like to
`
`25 propose, is that, patent owner's counsel, we note
`
`14
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 your objection that, you know, this updated
`
` 2 mandatory filing notice, it's your position that
`
` 3 under 42.8 (a)(3), the rules don't allow this
`
` 4 because it was more than 21 days after the
`
` 5 acquisition, whatever you want to call it, and
`
` 6 that this changes the facts that should be taken
`
` 7 into account.
`
` 8 And then we have also -- would
`
` 9 like to note for petitioner that we understand
`
`10 the point that their position is that it was
`
`11 21 days after the patent owner preliminary
`
`12 response, so it should be taken into account.
`
`13 I mean, you know, these are the
`
`14 underlying facts. And we can take all this into
`
`15 account including the petition and the patent
`
`16 owner preliminary response to render a decision.
`
`17 So if we're willing to note this formally in our
`
`18 order, would that satisfy what you want to say?
`
`19 We'll start with patent owner.
`
`20 MR. BABCOCK: Well, Your Honor, we
`
`21 certainly will defer to the panel's decision.
`
`22 It's less than satisfactory, because I think one
`
`23 of the issues that you're going to have to decide
`
`24 here is, is this a situation where the Board
`
`25 should be, in our view, overlooking the rules.
`
`15
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 There is significant institutional
`
` 2 prejudice we'd like to explain in writing -- and
`
` 3 relying upon the Zoll line of cases or the Zoll
`
` 4 case -- to explain why this is not a situation of
`
` 5 no harm, no foul.
`
` 6 I think what petitioner was hoping
`
` 7 to have happen here is the Board just to say,
`
` 8 Okay, well, we all know who the RPI is now.
`
` 9 Let's proceed. That isn't appropriate under the
`
`10 policies under both the statute and the rules.
`
`11 And I think while we could go through that on the
`
`12 phone, the merits I think deserve some
`
`13 explication, so the Board appreciates that if
`
`14 they allow and overlook this procedural defect,
`
`15 it's significant and it sets a significant
`
`16 precedent, a negative precedent, for ongoing
`
`17 IPR's.
`
`18 There is [sic, are] 1,500-plus of
`
`19 these cases now. And if you allow petitioners to
`
`20 get away with not identifying the RPI until after
`
`21 the POPR, and say, Well, no harm, no foul, we
`
`22 think that that is not only -- not only
`
`23 prejudicial to the patent owner, but prejudicial
`
`24 to the institution, as well.
`
`25 We would like to be able to
`
`16
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 explain that in a short paper so that when -- if
`
` 2 we do take this up on appeal, that record is
`
` 3 clear that the Board -- I believe you have -- you
`
` 4 have discretion to ignore the rules, but we think
`
` 5 you should not in this case. And we would like
`
` 6 to explain in more detail the statute and the
`
` 7 rules and why, in fact, simply filing something
`
` 8 after the POPR, not only violates the rules, but
`
` 9 causes significant harm to the patent owner and
`
`10 to the patent office, who relies upon that
`
`11 identification when the petition is filed.
`
`12 JUDGE KIM: And I understand that,
`
`13 Counsel, but I guess my point is that you have
`
`14 pointed out that, yes, we will -- we acknowledge
`
`15 that you're saying that under 42.8 (a)(3) and
`
`16 under the Zoll Lifecor v. Philips case that this
`
`17 should not be allowed. And I think from what you
`
`18 have explained, it doesn't seem like it really
`
`19 expands on what was the general gist of what was
`
`20 in the patent owner preliminary response.
`
`21 So my point is that if we
`
`22 acknowledge the fact that you are asking us to
`
`23 not ignore those rules in that case, that whether
`
`24 that should -- that just, you know, makes this
`
`25 request moot.
`
`17
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 MR. BABCOCK: Well, I guess, Your Honor,
`
` 2 that it -- it certainly helps tremendously to
`
` 3 appreciate that the Board recognizes that. And
`
` 4 that's one reason we have the court reporter
`
` 5 here, is it's important for us as counsel in
`
` 6 these cases to have a record that we can point
`
` 7 back to to make sure the Board is aware of the
`
` 8 arguments that counsel -- the parties.
`
` 9 JUDGE KIM: You have the court reporter.
`
`10 MR. BABCOCK: Yes.
`
`11 JUDGE KIM: When we issue the order, we
`
`12 will put all these facts into the order so that
`
`13 there will be a record for you to appeal on if
`
`14 you disagree.
`
`15 MR. BABCOCK: Understood.
`
`16 JUDGE KIM: Okay?
`
`17 So then, if that is sufficient,
`
`18 then, do you withdraw your request to supplement?
`
`19 MR. BABCOCK: No, Your Honor, I don't want
`
`20 to withdraw my request. I still would prefer to
`
`21 have the four pages. But as counsel, I recognize
`
`22 you are the judge. And if that's the judge's
`
`23 decision, we'll understand it and move forward on
`
`24 that basis.
`
`25 JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`18
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 Petitioner?
`
` 2 MR. BROWN: Yes, Your Honor, two points.
`
` 3 One is that this case is not at
`
` 4 all like the Zoll Lifecor case, which patent
`
` 5 owner mentioned, because in that case there was
`
` 6 an unnamed party --
`
` 7 JUDGE KIM: Again, Counsel, I don't want
`
` 8 to get into the merits.
`
` 9 MR. BROWN: I'm sorry.
`
`10 JUDGE KIM: I don't want to get into the
`
`11 merits.
`
`12 We'll take a look at the case on
`
`13 our own. And we can figure out whether or not it
`
`14 applies.
`
`15 MR. BROWN: Okay.
`
`16 JUDGE KIM: I understand, patent owner is
`
`17 saying it does apply, and you're saying it's not.
`
`18 MR. BROWN: Yes. And there is --
`
`19 basically there is no prejudice and none that
`
`20 patent owner has shown here or is able to show.
`
`21 JUDGE KIM: All right. Let me confer with
`
`22 my panel one second. And we'll be right back.
`
`23 (Brief recess.)
`
`24 JUDGE KIM: Thank you for holding on. The
`
`25 panel is back.
`
`19
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 After conferring with my fellow
`
` 2 colleagues, we're not persuaded, after noting
`
` 3 these facts, that a four-page supplement will
`
` 4 assist in our decision making. So we deny the
`
` 5 request.
`
` 6 And I believe that's it.
`
` 7 MR. BABCOCK: We appreciate your time,
`
` 8 Your Honors.
`
` 9 This is Brent Babcock. Just for
`
`10 the reporter's sake, Judge Kim, we got Judge
`
`11 Scanlon's name, but we missed the third judge on
`
`12 the panel.
`
`13 JUDGE KIM: Judge Kalan.
`
`14 MR. BABCOCK: Could you spell that,
`
`15 please.
`
`16 JUDGE KIM: K-A-L-A-N.
`
`17 MR. BABCOCK: Great. Thank you, very
`
`18 much.
`
`19 JUDGE KIM: Sure. It's on the order, as
`
`20 well.
`
`21 MR. BABCOCK: Very good. We have
`
`22 authorization to file a transcript, Your Honor?
`
`23 JUDGE KIM: Well, that's another request.
`
`24 MR. BABCOCK: I think normally that's the
`
`25 normal -- the normal approach is after a
`
`20
`
`

`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`
` 1 conference call is transcribed, it's normally
`
` 2 just filed as a matter of course. But I guess we
`
` 3 want to make sure that you don't have a problem
`
` 4 with that.
`
` 5 JUDGE KIM: I tell you what, it's noted.
`
` 6 And we'll go ahead and put in the order whether
`
` 7 we do or do not.
`
` 8 MR. BABCOCK: Understood.
`
` 9 JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`10 MR. BABCOCK: Understood.
`
`11 JUDGE KIM: Thank you very much, everyone.
`
`12 MR. BROWN: Thank you very much,
`
`13 Your Honor.
`
`14 (Session ended at 10:25 a.m.)
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`21
`
`

`
`F—_'___—__”_”_'_'_"’"_—_—_*#_—__—_—"_—_‘_——“_———"_’_—_——“”
`
`COURT REPORTERS CERTIFICATE
`
`ss.
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF‘ ORANGE
`
`I,
`
`Denise Hess
`
`, hereby Certify:
`
`I am a duly qualified Certified shorthand
`
`Reporter,
`
`in the State of California, holder of
`
`Certificate Number CSR 7554
`
`issued by the Court
`
`Reporters Board of California and which is in full
`force and effect.
`
`I am not financially interested in this
`
`action and am not a relative or employee of any
`
`attorney of the parties, or of any of the parties.
`
`I am the reporter that stenographically
`
`recorded the testimony in the foregoing
`
`proceeding and the foregoing transcript is a true
`
`record of the testimony given.
`
`Dated:
`
`July 23, 2014
`
`_
`
`.4/\,
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`22
`
`éK§R€€?
`HEREIN!
`
`
`
`
`

`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`July 17, 2014
`
`[
`
`[sic (2)
` 13:24;16:18
`
`A
`
`a2 (1)
` 8:2
`a3 (3)
` 10:10;15:3;17:15
`able (2)
` 16:25;19:20
`account (3)
` 15:7,12,15
`acknowledge (2)
` 17:14,22
`acquired (2)
` 10:23;11:19
`acquisition (1)
` 15:5
`actual (1)
` 10:17
`actually (1)
` 10:4
`additional (1)
` 14:6
`address (2)
` 7:4,13
`addressed (2)
` 7:10;13:21
`admittedly (1)
` 7:17
`afternoon (2)
` 4:4,19
`Again (4)
` 9:6,18;14:6;19:7
`agreed (1)
` 9:20
`ahead (4)
` 11:4;13:14;14:18;
` 21:6
`al (1)
` 7:21
`Alemanni (2)
` 4:13,15
`allow (4)
` 10:8;15:3;16:14,
` 19
`allowed (2)
` 8:9;17:17
`amended (1)
` 8:10
`amendment (2)
` 8:11,12
`apparently (1)
` 12:12
`appeal (2)
` 17:2;18:13
`appears (2)
` 7:17;11:14
`applies (1)
`
` 19:14
`apply (2)
` 14:13;19:17
`appreciate (3)
` 14:9;18:3;20:7
`appreciates (1)
` 16:13
`approach (1)
` 20:25
`appropriate (2)
` 13:16;16:9
`are] (1)
` 16:18
`arguments (1)
` 18:8
`assist (1)
` 20:4
`authorization (7)
` 6:11;8:19,22,23;
` 10:6,14;20:22
`authorized (1)
` 9:3
`aware (1)
` 18:7
`away (1)
` 16:20
`
`B
`
`BABCOCK (20)
` 4:19,20;5:7;10:10;
` 13:12,12,15;15:20;
` 18:1,10,15,19;20:7,
` 9,14,17,21,24;21:8,
` 10
`back (6)
` 6:21;11:19;14:23;
` 18:7;19:22,25
`Barkley (1)
` 4:24
`based (1)
` 6:5
`basically (3)
` 11:25;12:14;19:19
`basis (2)
` 6:1;18:24
`behalf (1)
` 7:18
`Board (23)
` 5:24;6:11;7:12,14,
` 25;8:19;9:6,11,16,
` 20,20,22;10:24;11:8;
` 13:17;14:12,14;
` 15:24;16:7,13;17:3;
` 18:3,7
`both (1)
` 16:10
`Brent (2)
` 4:20;20:9
`brief (4)
` 5:9;9:14;14:21;
` 19:23
`BROWN (15)
`
` 4:11,12,17;5:3;
` 11:5,6;12:3,7;13:4,
` 10;19:2,9,15,18;
` 21:12
`
`C
`
`CALIFORNIA (1)
` 4:1
`call (12)
` 4:7,9,14,25;5:6,8;
` 6:23,25;7:2;10:25;
` 15:5;21:1
`Can (9)
` 4:9;5:6;6:25;
` 10:13;14:11,17;
` 15:14;18:6;19:13
`Cannon (1)
` 4:21
`careful (1)
` 14:11
`case (13)
` 7:19,20;9:18;
` 11:11;13:1;16:4;
` 17:5,16,23;19:3,4,5,
` 12
`cases (3)
` 16:3,19;18:6
`causes (1)
` 17:9
`CBM's (1)
` 11:24
`certainly (3)
` 10:12;15:21;18:2
`change (4)
` 10:4,11,12,15
`changes (2)
` 10:13;15:6
`chose (1)
` 9:2
`chronology (2)
` 5:10,10
`clear (2)
` 8:4;17:3
`colleagues (1)
` 20:2
`complaint (1)
` 11:14
`compliance (1)
` 8:6
`comply (1)
` 9:23
`confer (2)
` 14:17;19:21
`conference (1)
` 21:1
`conferring (1)
` 20:1
`confusion (1)
` 12:12
`conjunction (1)
` 9:16
`considered (1)
`
` 8:5
`consistent (1)
` 14:13
`contacted (2)
` 6:20;8:19
`contain (1)
` 8:8
`corrected (1)
` 8:24
`correctly (1)
` 6:7
`correspondence (1)
` 6:21
`counsel (10)
` 10:4,12,13;12:1;
` 14:25;17:13;18:5,8,
` 21;19:7
`course (2)
` 9:17;21:2
`court (4)
` 4:22,24;18:4,9
`culminating (1)
` 6:22
`Curylo (1)
` 4:12
`
`D
`
`day (1)
` 11:25
`days (13)
` 5:21;8:11,13;
` 10:11,13,16,18,20,
` 23;12:16;13:20;
` 15:4,11
`decide (1)
` 15:23
`decision (8)
` 9:8,11;13:9,18;
` 15:16,21;18:23;20:4
`defect (1)
` 16:14
`defective (2)
` 7:16,17
`defer (1)
` 15:21
`delved (1)
` 9:21
`denial (1)
` 5:25
`Denise (1)
` 4:23
`deny (2)
` 5:24;20:4
`deserve (1)
` 16:12
`detail (1)
` 17:6
`disagree (1)
` 18:14
`discretion (1)
` 17:4
`dismiss (1)
`
` 9:22
`dismissal (1)
` 9:9
`dispositive (3)
` 7:19;9:19;13:1
`disputes (1)
` 11:21
`done (1)
` 9:15
`due (1)
` 9:17
`
`E
`
`early (1)
` 9:11
`either (1)
` 13:3
`end (1)
` 9:15
`ended (1)
` 21:14
`entitled (1)
` 6:12
`equitable (1)
` 7:12
`et (1)
` 7:21
`evaluate (1)
` 9:16
`event (2)
` 8:12,13
`everyone (2)
` 5:1;21:11
`example (1)
` 10:3
`existed (1)
` 10:18
`expands (1)
` 17:19
`expecting (1)
` 4:13
`explain (5)
` 7:14;16:2,4;17:1,6
`explained (2)
` 8:16;17:18
`explication (1)
` 16:13
`explicitly (1)
` 12:19
`expunge (1)
` 9:7
`extent (1)
` 5:18
`
`F
`
`fact (10)
` 6:3,8,15;7:6;8:14;
` 10:16,22;11:24;17:7,
` 22
`facts (5)
` 10:17;15:6,14;
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Barkley Court Reporters
`
`(1) [sic - facts
`
`

`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK BOARD PROCEEDINGS
`July 17, 2014
`
` 18:12;20:3
`fails (2)
` 14:7,7
`failure (1)
` 9:23
`fair (1)
` 7:11
`fellow (1)
` 20:1
`few (1)
` 13:20
`figure (1)
` 19:13
`file (8)
` 7:2;8:12,20;10:6,
` 13,20;12:23;20:22
`filed (16)
` 5:12,21;6:4,12;
` 7:9;8:9,14,21,24;9:3;
` 10:21;11:24;13:19,
` 21;17:11;21:2
`filing (9)
` 6:19;7:5,9,10,14,
` 15;9:13;15:2;17:7
`first (1)
` 14:9
`formally (1)
` 15:17
`forth (1)
` 6:21
`forward (1)
` 18:23
`foul (2)
` 16:5,21
`four (3)
` 7:15;9:14;18:21
`four-page (6)
` 7:3,12;12:6,8,23;
` 20:3
`
`G
`
`general (1)
` 17:19
`gist (1)
` 17:19
`given (1)
` 7:7
`Good (3)
` 4:4,19;20:21
`Google (10)
` 5:16;6:3,14;10:22;
` 11:12,15,19,22,23;
` 12:19
`grant (1)
` 7:12
`Great (2)
` 5:4;20:17
`grounds (2)
` 5:24,25
`guess (3)
` 17:13;18:1;21:2
`
`H
`
`happen (1)
` 16:7
`happy (1)
` 7:1
`harm (3)
` 16:5,21;17:9
`helps (1)
` 18:2
`Hess (1)
` 4:23
`H-E-S-S (1)
` 4:23
`holding (1)
` 19:24
`Honor (12)
` 4:12,19;5:3,7;
` 11:5;13:13;15:20;
` 18:1,19;19:2;20:22;
` 21:13
`Honors (1)
` 20:8
`hoping (1)
` 16:6
`
`I
`
`identical (1)
` 5:10
`identification (6)
` 5:19;6:1;8:8,20,
` 25;17:11
`identified (4)
` 5:14;6:7;8:3,18
`identify (2)
` 11:11,15
`identifying (1)
` 16:20
`ignore (2)
` 17:4,23
`important (1)
` 18:5
`improper (1)
` 7:15
`included (1)
` 8:24
`including (1)
` 15:15
`incorrect (2)
` 6:1;10:17
`incorrectly (1)
` 8:18
`indicated (1)
` 5:16
`information (2)
` 10:12,19
`institution (1)
` 16:24
`institutional (1)
` 16:1
`Intellectual (1)
`
` 11:20
`interest (11)
` 5:15,18;6:2,5,15;
` 8:3;9:1;11:12,16;
` 12:14,20
`into (9)
` 6:25;9:21;12:2;
` 15:7,12,14;18:12;
` 19:8,10
`investigation (1)
` 6:6
`IPR2013-00607 (1)
` 7:20
`IPR2014 (1)
` 4:7
`IPR's (2)
` 5:11;16:17
`IRVINE (2)
` 4:1,24
`issue (7)
` 6:20;7:19;9:19;
` 12:15,17;14:5;18:11
`issues (3)
` 12:11,25;15:23
`
`J
`
`John (1)
` 4:13
`JUDGE (40)
` 4:4,5,5,6,18;5:1,4;
` 7:21,21;9:25;11:1;
` 12:1,4;13:2,6,14;
` 14:16,22;17:12;18:9,
` 11,16,22,25;19:7,10,
` 16,21,24;20:10,10,
` 11,13,13,16,19,23;
` 21:5,9,11
`judge's (1)
` 18:22
`July (2)
` 4:2;6:19
`June (3)
` 5:20;6:12,16
`
`K
`
`Kalan (2)
` 4:6;20:13
`K-A-L-A-N (1)
`