IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION, )
` )
` Petitioner, ) Case IPR2013-00567
` ) Patent 8,217,902
`vs. )
` ) Case IPR2013-00568
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS, ) Patent 8,217,902
` )
` Patent Owner. ) Case IPR2014-00541
` ) Patent 8,217,902
`______________________________)
`
` Monday, April 14, 2014
` 3:30 p.m. EST
`
` Teleconference before the Patent Trial and
`Appeals Board, Judges Josiah C. Cocks,
`Richard E. Rice,and Adam V. Floyd presiding, the
`proceedings being recorded stenographically by
`Carrie LaMontagne, Certified Shorthand Reporter for
`the State of Oklahoma, License No. 1976, and
`transcribed under her direction.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 42
`
`Wintek Exhibit 1015
`Wintek v. TPK
`IPR2014-00541
`
`
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION, )
` )
` Petitioner, ) Case IPR2013-00567
` ) Patent 8,217,902
`vs. )
` ) Case IPR2013-00568
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS, ) Patent 8,217,902
` )
` Patent Owner. ) Case IPR2014-00541
` ) Patent 8,217,902
`______________________________)
`
` Monday, April 14, 2014
` 3:30 p.m. EST
`
` Teleconference before the Patent Trial and
`Appeals Board, Judges Josiah C. Cocks,
`Richard E. Rice,and Adam V. Floyd presiding, the
`proceedings being recorded stenographically by
`Carrie LaMontagne, Certified Shorthand Reporter for
`the State of Oklahoma, License No. 1976, and
`transcribed under her direction.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 42
`
`Wintek Exhibit 1015
`Wintek v. TPK
`IPR2014-00541
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (all appearing
`telephonically):
`On behalf of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
` JOSIAH C. COCKS, ESQ., Administrative Law Judge
`
`2
`
`On behalf of the Party TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS:
` JOSEPH RICHETTI, ESQ.
` BRYAN CAVE LLP
` 1290 Avenue of the Americas
` New York, New York 10104
` (212) 541-2000
` joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
` and
`
` DAVID BILSKER, ESQ.
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
` San Francisco, California 94111
` (415) 875-6600
` davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
`
`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
`
`Page 2 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`3
`
`On behalf of the Parties WINTECK CORPORATION:
` JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQ.
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
` Two Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virgina 20190
` (571) 203-2700
` joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`
` and
`
` NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
` 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 408-4000
` naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`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
`
`Page 3 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` MR. BILSKER: This is David Bilsker for
`patent owner. Good afternoon, your Honors. So the
`first issue that we have is something that was
`discussed at the scheduling conference and it was the
`witness statement of petitioner's expert,
`Vivek Subramanian.
` We believe that there was information in that
`witness statement that was relevant to positions that
`he was taking in this IPR, and we did do a meet
`confer with petitioners; and I can't say that we are
`actually in disagreement, but we're at an impasse.
` The issue is that the expert, Dr. Subramanian,
`does not actually have in his possession the witness
`statement any longer and petitioners do not have it
`either. So even if they wanted to give it to us,
`they are not in a position to actually produce it to
`us. So we're at somewhat of an impasse as to what to
`do.
` The witness statement belongs to Apple. They
`were the ones that submitted his testimony in the ITC
`proceedings in which the testimony came out. So it
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`seems that they would be really the only ones that
`would be in a position to produce it to us.
` JUDGE COCKS: This is Judge Cocks.
` So what relief are you seeking from the board?
` MR. BILSKER: Well, I guess we're seeking
`one of two things. Either some guidance from the
`board as to how to go about obtaining that witness
`statement with the Board's assistance and/or leave
`the file and motion to compel to obtain that witness
`statement.
` JUDGE COCKS: All right. Mr. Palys, do you
`have any thoughts in that regard?
` MR. PALYS: This is Joseph Palys.
` My only thoughts are I wouldn't necessarily
`agree that there is no disagreement. We -- from the
`preliminary information that we received from the
`patent owner, we don't think there's an inconsistent
`statement; but as far as the facts are concerned,
`that is true.
` Our client does not have possession of this
`material, nor does our expert. So we really couldn't
`produce it even if there was a motion to compel or
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`some sort of order from the board. It's not in our
`possession, custody, or control.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. So this is not
`information that's relied upon. It's being sought
`because it's allegedly inconsistent with the position
`taken in the petition.
` Is that what I'm hearing?
` MR. BILSKER: This is David Bilsker.
` That's correct, your Honor. And I can get into
`that a little bit more if you would like.
` JUDGE COCKS: Yes, please, briefly, I
`guess.
` MR. BILSKER: Sure. As you know, there's
`cases about touch panels, capacitive touch panels,
`and that was the technology at issue in the Apple ITC
`proceedings. And Dr. Subramanian, basically, in
`refuting the obviousness of a combination between two
`references that involved different types of sensors
`stated that it would not be obvious to implement
`those two systems together or combine them together
`because, in fact, they did use different types of
`censors.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`7
` Now, that statement is directly contradictory to
`multiple statements -- multiple positions that he is
`taking in this IPR. For example, with respect to the
`Fujitsu and the Miller references, the Fujitsu
`reference is one that measures self-capacitance; the
`Miller reference is one that measures mutual
`capacitance but does so in a two-layer solution -- or
`two-layer system.
` The two-layer system is not the type of system
`that is at issue in Fujitsu. It's a one-layer
`system. Two-layer system is what the patent at
`issue, the 902 patent, seeks to distinguish. Yet he
`says it would be obvious to combine those two. So we
`believe that those would reasonably be calculated as
`systems that involve different types of sensors.
` He's saying it would be obvious to combine those
`two; whereas in the previous Apple case, he said a
`system that involved different types of sensors would
`not be obvious to combine. And that's just one
`example. There are many more.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Well, at first blush,
`the question of whether something is obvious is a
`
`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
`
`Page 7 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`question of law. And that's something for us to
`decide. So I'm not sure that there is a prejudice
`here if this testimony never comes to light.
` MR. BILSKER: I think he's relying on
`factually -- what people of ordinarily skill in the
`art factually would find to be obvious. He's not
`drawing the legal conclusion, but he is stating what
`those at skill in the art would find reasonable to do
`at the time, which I think is a factual issue which
`we can dispute with him.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Well, I mean, the
`other side is required by rules -- or is required to
`provide evidence of inconsistent statements made in
`the petition, but I think they're saying they don't
`have it.
` That is the case, right, Mr. Palys, you do not
`have this information that we're discussing?
` MR. PALYS: This is Joseph Palys.
` That's correct, your Honor. But just a couple
`points. Just as I'm sure the board appreciates, this
`is information coming from one side of the "B," if
`you will. I haven't even had a chance to look at
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`what they're talking about.
` Obviously, from what we reviewed in the order
`that the patent owner provided to us in the ITC case,
`that when we asked, you know, in particular what
`inconsistent statement they're referring to, based on
`that information, we don't believe that is
`inconsistent.
` But the details that I'm hearing from the other
`side haven't been shared with us. And to be honest
`with you, it sounds like they've already seen it.
`They might already be in possession of it. So I'm
`kind of lost if they're seeking for additional
`discovery on something, one, that we don't have
`possession on. Just to confirm, again --
` JUDGE COCKS: Mr. Palys, I'm sorry to
`interrupt.
` Why doesn't your expert have access to his prior
`report?
` MR. PALYS: I believe that the issue is
`that it was all under a protective order. These were
`confidential documents, and that case has since
`ceased. Under the protective order, they were
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`supposed to destroy all documents in their
`possession. I believe that's the issue here. So he
`was filing a court order to --
` JUDGE COCKS: Are you saying you believe
`this document does not exist?
` MR. PALYS: In his possession, that's what
`he's telling us. I've asked the expert and that's
`what he told us. I even asked our client if they
`would happen to have this information. I have no
`reason to believe that they would because this is a
`different case, a different party, different issues.
`And they confirmed they don't have this information.
`So we do not have possession, custody, or control.
`That's my understanding of the information that they
`requested.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay.
` MR. BILSKER: This is David Bilsker. I can
`assure you, Judge Cocks, that I do not have
`possession of the expert witness statement. I was
`basically just putting forth what is stated in the
`publicly available commission order from the ITC.
` MR. PALYS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. So just -- so
`Mr. Bilsker, as I said before, what are you -- what
`relief are you seeking? What are you asking for?
` MR. BILSKER: I believe we would be asking
`for the board to subpoena -- issue a subpoena
`compelling Apple to produce that witness.
` JUDGE COCKS: Mr. Bilsker, the board does
`not have subpoena power, so that is not an option.
`Possibility, we could -- this will allow you to seek
`that information in a different proceeding, a
`district court proceeding, but we don't have subpoena
`power. So that is not something available.
` MR. BILSKER: So then we would be seeking
`leave to get permission from you to seek a subpoena
`from a district court compelling Apple to produce
`that witness statement.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. I understand.
` MR. BILSKER: And any testimony.
` JUDGE COCKS: Mr. Palys, it sounds, from
`what you said before, that you haven't necessarily
`had time to consider what the other side is saying.
` Is there a possibility there still is some
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`12
`agreement to be reached here or is that foreclosed at
`this point?
` MR. PALYS: This is Joseph Palys.
` As far as an agreement, I'm not quite sure what
`that agreement is. They're asking for production of
`a document that we don't have. That's the underlying
`issue here. I'm not sure what the board means by
`reaching an agreement.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. I understand. I just
`wondered if there was any possibility that the
`parties could somehow confer without requiring board
`intervention at the stage. It sounds like that's not
`the case, though.
` MR. PALYS: Yeah, I don't believe on this
`issue, sir.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Let's table that
`discussion. That Board is going to confer, the Panel
`is going to confer briefly at some point.
` Let's get into the second position and we'll
`confer about all the issues that we have to talk
`about today.
` There was a second item in your e-mail,
`
`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
`
`Page 12 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Mr. Palys, I believe.
` MR. PALYS: Yes. This is Joseph Palys
`again.
` The other issue we would like to discuss -- we
`briefly raised it in our last call with the Board
`that there is a new IPR petition that was filed. I
`believe it's IPR 2014, dash, 00541. And that has
`been afforded a filing date.
` And that IPR relates to the 902 patent. And
`with that petition there was a motion for joinder.
`And in particular with that -- and this is all set
`forth in the motion, your Honor. But in particular
`with that petition it relates to four independent
`claims that are not being reviewed in the 902 patent
`based on decisions from the Board and the 567 and 568
`matters.
` I won't bore you with the details. I'm happy to
`do so, but what it boils down to is these are
`dependent claims, and it really only relates to two
`claim limitations. In fact, out of the four claims,
`two of the claims -- I want to correct myself. Two
`of the claims are actually under review and one of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`them -- the matters -- I believe it's claims -- I
`don't even want to represent -- the four claims at
`issue are 20, 23, 28, and 30.
` What we're asking here today, your Honor, is to
`consider somehow coming up with a plan to align the
`schedules, assuming the Board grants our -- Wintek's
`motion for joinder. And we raise this issue with the
`patent owner trying to come to some preliminary
`consensus about a schedule, how these four dependent
`claims can be addressed in the proceedings should the
`Board grant a joinder. And we proposed a schedule to
`them. They declined to adopt that schedule and
`didn't propose anything back. That's why we added
`this issue to the call.
` As we set forth in the motion in the 541 matter,
`you know, the Board has done something similar in the
`Ariosa case, whether it was dependent claims. There
`was another IPR petition filed on dependent claims.
`Just like in the Ariosa case, we have the same
`patent, almost the exact, identical, same type of
`prior art.
` The independent claims that these dependent
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`15
`claims stem from -- have the same positions that are
`being considered in the 567 and 568 matter, the same
`declarants. Essentially, the position is that were
`taking in -- taken by the expert and the petitioner
`in the 567 and 568 matters that are essentially this
`new petition -- we're just making sure these four
`claims are going to be under review.
` So that's where we stand right now. And what
`we're seeking from the Board right now is something
`similar to what happened in Ariosa. We just want to
`find a way to come to a plan that can align the
`schedule should joinder be granted.
` JUDGE COCKS: Sounds like, to me, this is
`preliminary for two reasons: One, the Board has not
`decided to institute -- made a decision on the
`institution with the respect to the 541 case. So
`it's preliminary in that regard; therefore, it has
`also not issued a decision on whether it is -- in the
`even that decision we do institute, whether they
`join.
` So I think there's nothing really to discuss
`today except to say that should the Board institute
`
`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
`
`Page 15 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`16
`in the 541 case and should they grant the motion for
`joinder, we will make every effort to adjust the
`schedule as well as can be to try and maintain
`consistency and something that's fair to both
`parties.
` I'm not sure what else we can talk about here
`today in terms of hypothetical changes to a --
`scheduling order based on hypothetical joinders.
` MR. PALYS: I'm sorry, your Honor. This is
`Joseph Palys again.
` Just to make a point here. We fully appreciate
`that. And what we're asking for is something -- what
`was similarly -- happened in the Ariosa case, which
`was the Board considered having the parties propose a
`revised schedule before the joinder motion was
`granted. That way there was a schedule that when, in
`that case -- when joinder was eventually -- the
`motion was granted, the revised schedule was adopted,
`it allowed for discovery in the original underlying
`cases or trials to proceed.
` And what we're asking -- why we're proposing
`this, your Honor, is because we're digging into
`
`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
`
`Page 16 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`17
`discovery timelines for the 567 and 568. And what we
`want to do is try to come up with a plan, of course,
`with the other side and see if we can work something
`out with the Board's guidance, but really come up
`with a plan that allows the patent owner to get the
`discovery it need on the four claims.
` Again, this is a very similar matter as -- very
`similar issues. In fact, some of the same
`limitations are going to be addressed in some of the
`claims that are already being reviewed in the 567 and
`568.
` So what we're simply proposing is that we asked
`for an expedited schedule for the preliminary
`response in the 541 matter in order for the Board to
`expedite -- you know, at least it gets before the
`Board quicker to make its determination on
`institution and a joinder motion, and at the same
`time allow the parties so there isn't much adjustment
`to the schedule in terms of, you know, the deposition
`for Wintek's expert and discovery and things of that
`nature, that these four claims can be addressed in
`the 567 and 568 matter in due course.
`
`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
`
`Page 17 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`18
` JUDGE COCKS: Well, let me ask you. In the
`Ariosa case -- if you have that number, please
`provide it. Let me ask you first.
` Was the decision to institute already -- was
`trial already instituted in the case that was sought
`to be joined?
` MR. PALYS: I believe not. The case matter
`was -- there's two trials. So it's IPR2012, matter
`22 was, I believe, the original IPR that was filed.
`And then matter 250 -- let me make sure -- let me get
`the right date. I think it was IPR2012-250, but I
`want to make sure. It's in our motion. Just a
`second here.
` But in that matter, your Honor, just to answer
`your question, the Board had considered these issues
`with the revised schedule before institution. In
`fact, the Board found that -- expedited the
`preliminary response period for the new petition to
`allow for this to happen.
` MR. MODI: Your Honor, this is Naveen Modi.
`Joe, I can get that information.
` MR. PALYS: Please do.
`
`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
`
`Page 18 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`19
` MR. MODI: Your Honor, it's IPR2013, dash,
`0250. And it was paper number 24.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. PALYS: That was the new matter, the
`new petition that was filed.
` JUDGE COCKS: I understand.
` MR. PALYS: Thank you.
` JUDGE COCKS: Mr. Bilsker, any comments on
`this?
` MR. BILSKER: Mr. Richetti is going to
`respond to this.
` MR. RICHETTI: Yes, hi, your Honor. This
`is Joseph Richetti for patent owner.
` I think from TPK's position, your Honor, is, you
`know, I think along the lines of what the Board
`mentioned, that this is premature.
` I think the second part is at least the proposed
`schedule that was provided by Wintek's counsel,
`petitioner's counsel, was trying to cut down the
`patent owner's preliminary response from being due on
`July 4th to April 23rd. So, you know, almost cutting
`it out two and a half months. It seemed like it
`
`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
`
`Page 19 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`unduly prejudiced patent owner and, you know, also
`put in built-in assumptions that the Board would be
`able to respond, you know, in an expedited way, like
`petitioner mentioned, such that our May 16th date,
`which is the present date for the final response and
`the 567 and 568 IPRs.
` So I just think this is a situation where the
`deadlines are so far off because the 541 IPR
`petition, the new one that Wintek filed, was accorded
`a filing date of April 4th. And the 567 and 568, the
`ones we're talking about today, our final response is
`due May 16th, so it just doesn't seem that there is a
`way to reconcile these schedules without, you know,
`cutting -- dramatically cutting short, you know,
`patent owner's ability to file a preliminary response
`and the Board to have ample time to respond.
` So, you know, we intend to oppose the motion for
`joinder as set forth in the e-mail, you know, and we
`were notifying the Board and seeking authorization to
`do that. And even that date just to oppose the
`joinder motion won't be due until April 28th.
` So it just seems like because petitioner waited
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`21
`so long to file this third petition -- and it sounds
`like that may be, you know, similar issue raised --
`it seemed like the impact to the original schedule
`would be too greet. And for that reason patent owner
`would like to oppose.
` MR. BILSKER: Okay. It's David Bilsker,
`and I wanted to raise one more issue.
` The petitioner did raise this issue with respect
`to the joinder of the 541 consolidating the discovery
`which is going to take place with respect it to their
`expert. And I just want to make sure that we're not
`slowing down the discovery that is supposed to be
`proceeding in the current cases where we have a
`request for a deposition out for the expert which
`we've agreed should go forward and we are waiting for
`date.
` I'm just hoping that the petitioner is not
`waiting to provide a date in the hopes that there's
`going to be joinder in this new case and that we take
`the discovery of all of the cases together during
`that deposition.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. Well, I can appreciate
`
`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
`
`Page 21 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`22
`that. At this point -- I mean, the schedule has not
`been changed. Both parties should be operating with
`the respect to the 567 and 568 cases based on the
`scheduling order that is currently in place.
` Mr. Palys, I do want to ask you -- so what
`Mr. Richetti said seems to make some sense to it.
`Essentially, you're asking that the patent owner have
`less time, it sounds like.
` Is that the gist of it?
` MR. PALYS: This is Joseph Palys.
` Yes, your Honor, in terms of the preliminary
`response for the 541 matter, we are requesting that
`we get an expedited due date. And I think what isn't
`being appreciated here, your Honor -- this isn't a
`case where there's a complete new petition with all
`60 -- 40-something claims and all these new issues
`that are being raised.
` I don't know if the Board -- I'm not going to
`suggest that they do this immediately. But I don't
`know if the Board has the chance to consider the
`facts and the issues that were set forth in the
`motion.
`
`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
`
`Page 22 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`23
` What we're talking about here are four claims --
`really two limitations of two claims that have
`already been addressed by the Board, in terms of the
`features of this. They are actually redundant of the
`limitations of the claims that are under review in
`the 567 and 568. This isn't something where there's
`totally new issues with TPK to consider.
` We think that expediting the schedule for
`preliminary response is not prejudicial at all. In
`fact, I don't even know if they would be pursuing the
`fact that their patent would be considered patentable
`on the limitations of these claims given that their
`expert has already agreed that this stuff was obvious
`back before the filing date of the 902 patent.
` So I think that factual background, as set forth
`in our motion, it needs to be considered in terms of
`what we're asking from the Board. Certainly, we're
`willing to work with the other side and we're willing
`to work with the Board.
` What we're trying to do here in terms of
`discovery and the proceedings itself is really
`minimize that impact. And we don't think that, yes,
`
`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
`
`Page 23 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`there might have to be a shift in the current
`schedule for the 568, 567 in order to accommodate
`this. And we think it could all be done with just a
`two-week shift.
` If we expedite their preliminary responses, as I
`mentioned -- and I think it certainly can be done,
`and we're open to suggestions from the Board and the
`other side. But like in Ariosa, all this could --
`there's precedent for it, that to discuss schedules
`before institution just to accommodate that --
`because at the end of the day here I think the whole
`idea here is to make sure -- obviously, we want to
`make sure that the Board has that opportunity to make
`its mandate to finish these IPR proceedings within
`its one-year time frame. But at the same time, these
`claims are not something that's so outlandish that
`they would require a separate proceeding.
` And one last point, in terms of waiting so
`long -- your Honor, I'm sure this Board appreciates
`that we had filed a request for a rehearing on the
`Board's decision, and the Board ruled against us, and
`we understand that. But we had to wait for that
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`25
`
`decision to see -- if the Board had granted that
`decision, this would have been a moot issue because
`those four claims would have been in these
`proceedings.
` So what happened is that -- these claims were
`not considered -- not under Inter Party's review for
`the substance of them. It was more of a procedural
`aspect of how, based on the Board's decisions on
`certain prior art, those claims fell out of the 567
`and 568 proceedings.
` So in order to make sure that these are being
`addressed, we had to prepare -- and we actually did
`it rather fast, if you will, your Honor -- to put
`together this petition and have it before the Board
`for consideration.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. So to be clear, what
`you're asking for is an expedited period for the
`preliminary patent owner response in the 541 case?
`That's what you're asking?
` MR. PALYS: Yes, your Honor. We're asking
`for that, and we're also asking for -- I guess, to
`allow us to -- I don't know how to you say this
`
`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
`
`Page 25 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`politely, but let's have the parties play nice and
`allow us to work together to propose a revised
`schedule to show the Board out how the 567 and 568
`schedule will be adjusted should the Board grant
`institution -- grant institution and grant the motion
`for joinder just like in the Ariosa case.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay. I think we understand.
` Mr. Bilsker, I take it that you're inclined to
`disagree with Mr. Palys. Is that the -- well, why
`don't you offer some comments and then the Board's
`going to confer about the issues.
` MR. BILSKER: Mr. Richetti, did you want to
`comment?
` MR. RICHETTI: Yeah, sure. This is
`Joseph Richetti for patent owner.
` I think the real issue is the due date, the
`current due date, for the 567 and 568 IPR, for the
`final response, is May 16th, and any kind of
`modification to the preliminary response date in the
`541 IPR would seem to be, you know, in conflict with
`being able to reach that date.
` And so I think while it's been fashioned right
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 42
`
`
`
` IPR2013-00567 - IPR2013-00568 - IPR2014-00541
` APRIL 14, 2014 Conference Call
`
`27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`now the argument from petitioner is just trying to
`expedite patent owner's preliminary response date, I
`think it necessarily implicates the current deadline
`and the current schedule for the 567 and 568 IPRs,
`which we, as the patent owner, you know, are not
`seeking to move those dates.
` And from, you know, our past discussion and the
`scheduling order with the Board, it was made clear
`that, you know, it's premature to do that. So I just
`don't think that based on the dates and when t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
