`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 3001
`
`Exhibit 3001
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` * * *
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` * * *
`
`WAVEMARKET INC., d/b/a LOCATION LABS,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` - against -
`
`LOCATIONET SYSTEMS, LTD.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` * * *
`
` December 24, 2014
` 1:01 p.m.
`
` BEFORE GLENN J. PERRY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH,
`
`and SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent
`
`Judges, held via telephone on the above-mentioned
`
`date and time, reported stenographically by Melissa
`
`Jimenez-De Armas, Shorthand Reporter and Notary
`
`Public for and within the State of New York.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` DENTONS US, LLP
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` BY: SCOTT W. CUMMINGS, ESQ.
` scott.cummings@dentons.com
` MARK L. HOGGE, ESQ.
` mark.hogge@dentons.com
`
` PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` BY: ANDY CHAN, ESQ.
` chana@pepperlaw.com
` THOMAS ENGELLENNER, ESQ.
` engellennert@pepperlaw.com
` REZA MOLLAAGHABABA
` mollaaghababar@pepperlaw.com
`
` o0o
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` MR. CHAN: Good afternoon your Honors. I
`
` am Andy Chan representing Patent Owner,
`
` Locationet Systems.
`
` Patent Owners requested this conference
`
` seeking authorization to file a motion for
`
` additional discovery concerning third party
`
` in privity with Petitioner for the purpose
`
` of preparing the Patent Owner's response,
`
` which is due on February 23rd, 2015.
`
` Patent Owner submits that evidence
`
` further establishing privity between
`
` Petitioner and each of Sprint, AT&T and
`
` T-Mobile is in Petitioner's possession, and
`
` without such evidence Patent Owner will be
`
` severely prejudiced because Patent Owner
`
` cannot obtain equivalent information by any
`
` other means.
`
` To address some of the prior comments in
`
` this proceeding and in prior proceedings,
`
` our November motion for additional
`
` discovery, prior to the institution of the
`
` decision, was denied because the Board
`
` concluded: One, that the proof of such
`
` discovery would not be available prior to
`
` the target date for the Board's institution
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` decision.
`
` Two, the Board was going to consider the
`
` evidence put forward in our preliminary
`
` response.
`
` And three, it was not clear why Patent
`
` Owner did not obtain the sought after
`
` documents in discovery. I'd like to address
`
` the third point first, since it appears that
`
` there is some confusion.
`
` Judge Andrews in the District Court of
`
` Delaware has ruled that discovery regarding
`
` the issue of privity between Petitioner and
`
` each Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile should be
`
` sought in the IPR proceeding and not in the
`
` District Court.
`
` That definitive ruling required us to
`
` obtain this discovery in this IPR
`
` proceeding. And Patent Owner had obtained
`
` certain documents in the District Court
`
` proceeding that were produced for other
`
` reasons, but it seems that in this
`
` proceeding Patent Owners can't present that
`
` evidence that we had to the Board because
`
` the protective order in the underlying
`
` litigation prevents us from using any
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` documents designated as confidential.
`
` The Patent Owner has requested that
`
` Petitioner produce those documents in this
`
` proceeding voluntarily, but it has opposed
`
` that request.
`
` Petitioner has told the Board that no
`
` discovery is needed because the Patent Owner
`
` has already received this document, but it's
`
` a half truth because Petitioner knows full
`
` well that the documents cannot be presented
`
` to the Board unless the Board authorizes the
`
` discovery for the purposes of this
`
` proceeding.
`
` So regarding the first and second reasons
`
` that the Board denied our previous requests
`
` for additional discovery, we clearly now
`
` have changed circumstances.
`
` The decision is to try, as issued, and
`
` the patent owner's discovery period for the
`
` patent owner's response has now diminished.
`
` And since the decision notes some
`
` deficiencies in our evidence to show
`
` privity, we're entitled to discovery on
`
` those points.
`
` And Patent Owner has expeditiously
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` requested this authorization to file the
`
` motion because of the upcoming holidays and
`
` the approaching deadline on February 23rd,
`
` 2015.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chan. Let
`
` me hear from the Petitioner, please.
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Sure. This is Scott
`
` Cummings. First of all, the notion that the
`
` patent owner has requested that discovery in
`
` a timely manner is, I think, pretty
`
` outrageous.
`
` We have the first case, first trial for
`
` this patent. The same pattern was repeated
`
` -- has been repeated for this trial as
`
` repeated in the first trial, namely, the
`
` Patent Owner going ahead with its
`
` preliminary response, making certain
`
` arguments with regards real parties in the
`
` interest of privity, losing those arguments,
`
` and then coming back to the Board after it's
`
` lost its arguments, requesting evidence to
`
` have a second bite at the apple to try to
`
` prevail on its arguments, when, in fact, the
`
` Patent Owner should have sought discovery in
`
` the very first IPR well in advance of the
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` deadline for its preliminary response so it
`
` would have all the evidence that it could
`
` muster to support its position.
`
` It didn't do that in the first IPR and
`
` now here we are again in a second IPR under
`
` the exact same circumstances, waiting until
`
` after it filed its preliminary response,
`
` made the argument, lost its argument and
`
` then coming back to the Board and requesting
`
` discovery.
`
` That is not the framework that the patent
`
` office has envisioned for these proceedings,
`
` and I think that's clear from the trial
`
` practice guide. And I think it's also clear
`
` and that the Board actually recognized the
`
` decision denying the patent owner's request
`
` for discovery in the first IPR.
`
` In that decision the Board correctly
`
` recognized that the timeliness of these
`
` types of requests for discovery are factors
`
` to be considered because the standard is the
`
` request of discovery in the interest of
`
` justice and the Board's ability to
`
` effectively and efficiently conduct these
`
` proceedings in part of that consideration.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` So on the Board's decision, that's Paper
`
` Number 34 and IPR 199, the first IPR. Paper
`
` Number 34, Case Number 8, the Board
`
` correctly noted that that is the
`
` consideration, and I think in this case
`
` quite clearly cuts against granting this
`
` belated -- once again, belated request for
`
` discovery.
`
` With respect to the merits of their
`
` request, the standard for discovery in
`
` District Court litigation and the standard
`
` for discovery in these proceedings, as we
`
` all know, is distinctly different.
`
` These proceedings were not designed for
`
` liberal discovery and not designed for
`
` repetitive discovery, disputes of the type
`
` that we find ourselves addressing today, on
`
` Christmas Eve.
`
` So the standard here is that the Patent
`
` Owner has the burden to demonstrate, beyond
`
` speculation, that something that it's
`
` requesting has utility to them, will be
`
` useful to them. They haven't done that.
`
` They haven't done that from the get-go, and
`
` they haven't done that today.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` There is nothing new here that
`
` demonstrates that what is being requested
`
` will be useful to them in demonstrating
`
` privity.
`
` Nothing that I've heard them ever say
`
` demonstrates to me, or leads anyone to the
`
` conclusion or belief, that the carriers were
`
` privy to the Petitioner as of the filing
`
` date of the complaint against the carriers.
`
` If there's something I'm missing, I'm
`
` happy to hear it, but I haven't heard
`
` anything to that effect.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Well, if I understood
`
` Patent Owner correctly, the document that is
`
` not able to be produced because of the
`
` District Court protective order, would
`
` indeed establish privity. Do you disagree
`
` with that?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: I do disagree with that.
`
` The documents -- I don't know what documents
`
` the Patent Owner is referring to, but I
`
` assume an indemnification agreement, or
`
` something to that effect.
`
` MR. CHEN: If I may. There are four
`
` categories of documents that we are seeking,
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` very narrowly tailored to show privity here.
`
` First, it's specific agreements that contain
`
` the relevant indemnification agreement, the
`
` provisions that they already admitted exist
`
` between the Petitioner and each of Sprint,
`
` T-Mobile and AT&T.
`
` They've acknowledged the existence of
`
` these agreements in prior papers submitted
`
` to the Board, and they've identified them
`
` with Bates Numbers that have been produced
`
` in the litigation, which we have no way of
`
` providing to the Board.
`
` Second, they've exercised, to the extent
`
` that that's privileged in the underlying
`
` litigation. So there is evidence of the
`
` existence of those common disagreements
`
` between Petitioner and each of the
`
` customers, Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile.
`
` Third, the communications between the
`
` Petitioner and each of Sprint, AT&T and
`
` T-Mobil regarding the tender of the
`
` indemnification. Petitioner's acceptance of
`
` the indemnification obligation and
`
` Petitioner's acceptance of the controls of
`
` defense of delegations on behalf of Sprint,
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` AT&T and T-Mobile in their respective
`
` District Court proceedings.
`
` We already have established through their
`
` own representations in open court and
`
` District Court that they have accepted the
`
` indemnification obligation on behalf of each
`
` of those three customers, and it accepted
`
` the control of the defense of the litigation
`
` of the same parties.
`
` So, all the evidence that I've discussed
`
` exists, and we know they exist and they've
`
` produced, to some extent, the
`
` indemnification agreement in the underlying
`
` litigation.
`
` And, four, we're all seeking
`
` communications between the Petitioner and
`
` each of Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile regarding
`
` the preparation and filing of the instant
`
` IPR petition.
`
` So the evidence that we're seeking all
`
` goes directly to, and now we challenge four,
`
` the showing of privity, and specifically
`
` with the request with respect to the control
`
` of the defense of the underlying litigations
`
` on behalf of those customers.
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Mr. Chan, have you seen the
`
` documents that are guarded by protective
`
` order yourself?
`
` MR. CHAN: I have not.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Has Mr. Engellenner seen
`
` those documents?
`
` MR. ENGELLENNER: No, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: So how is it that you all
`
` know that these documents established
`
` control?
`
` MR. CHAN: They have represented in open
`
` court, your Honor, that they have
`
` indemnified each of those customers.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Indemnification doesn't
`
` mean, necessarily, control.
`
` MR. CHAN: Right. It's evidence that
`
` supports control in the underlying
`
` litigations. And that's the evidence that
`
` we're seeking is those provisions that will
`
` demonstrate that they are controlling each
`
` of the litigations in the District Court.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Okay. Let me ask a
`
` question of the Petitioner.
`
` Petitioner, I recall that in a prior
`
` conference call you indeed argued to us that
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` this discovery sought in the IPR would be
`
` available in the District Court, and that
`
` that was the appropriate place for that
`
` discovery.
`
` I'm now understanding that the District
`
` Court judge has denied that discovery and
`
` says, No, that's not the case, the
`
` appropriate forum is the PTAB. Would you
`
` please respond or comment on that.
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Correct. So, I don't know
`
` what the scope of what was denied by the
`
` District Court, exactly. The discovery that
`
` was denied, I don't know the scope of that
`
` exactly. I believe I recall there was a
`
` paper or an order issued by the district
`
` court that I saw that was, you know, an open
`
` record that basically denied their request
`
` for communications about those issues
`
` between the parties, but -- I'm sorry, let
`
` me clarify that. Communications between the
`
` parties with regard to the filing of the
`
` IPR.
`
` So I don't know if that's what's been
`
` denied, but it's in fact -- I'm not sure if
`
` the request for indemnification agreement,
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` per se, has been denied. So I don't really
`
` know that I can speak accurately as to what
`
` the District Court has said is and is not
`
` discoverable.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: I understand that. But I
`
` recall fairly clearly that you argued to us
`
` in a very similar request during a
`
` conference call earlier --
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Correct.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: -- that the appropriate
`
` forum for the request made by Patent Owner
`
` was indeed the District Court.
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Correct. And I think
`
` that's still the case, and that, of course,
`
` is one of the factors.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: But the judge disagrees
`
` with you. The District Court judge
`
` disagrees with you.
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: Yeah, I'm not sure what
`
` the context of that request or the
`
` disagreement was, but that could be the
`
` case.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Okay.
`
` MR. CHAN: Your Honor, I have the
`
` transcript. I can read for you Judge
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Andrew's order, his decision in open court.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: If it's not too long,
`
` please read it.
`
` MR. CHAN: What he said is, When he filed
`
` the second IPR, that request is for the
`
` PTAB. I don't really think it's a
`
` legitimate purpose to begin discovery in
`
` this case.
`
` He also said, In any event, I'm not
`
` responsible. I am barely responsible for
`
` what I do, I'm not responsible for what they
`
` do and I'm -- this is, in my opinion, not
`
` the right place to be getting documents for
`
` use in the PTAB.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Okay.
`
` MR. CHAN: This is in response to a
`
` direct request specifically requesting
`
` discovery related to issue of privity and
`
` Section 315B as the provision that would bar
`
` the second IPR from being instituted.
`
` As the District Court said what I just
`
` quoted, which is that we cannot get any
`
` discovery related to that issue of privity
`
` under 315B in the District Court because
`
` it's not an issue before the District Court,
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 16
`
` it's an issue that is before the PTAB.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Okay, I understand.
`
` Petitioner, anything further from you?
`
` MR. CUMMINGS: No, Judge Perry, I don't
`
` have anything further.
`
` JUDGE PERRY: Judge Droesch, do you have
`
` any questions or comments? Judge Snedden,
`
` any comments or questions? Okay. We're
`
` going to convene discussion among the Panel
`
` after this conference call and try to get an
`
` order out next Monday, given the Christmas
`
` holiday, which will indicate our position.
`
` Thank you all, this call is adjourned.
`
` (TIME NOTED: 1:15 p.m.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`
`Page 17
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
` I, MELISSA JIMENEZ-DE ARMAS, a Shorthand
`
`Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State
`
`of New York, do hereby certify:
`
` That the foregoing record of proceedings is
`
`a full and correct transcript of the stenographic
`
`notes taken by me therein.
`
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
`
`hand this 5th day of January, 2015.
`
` MELISSA JIMENEZ-DE ARMAS
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`Page 1
`
`8:18 16:11
`circumstances
`5:17 7:6
`clarify
`13:20
`clear
`4:5 7:13,14
`clearly
`5:16 8:6 14:6
`coming
`6:20 7:9
`comment
`13:9
`comments
`3:18 16:7,8
`common
`10:16
`communications
`10:19 11:16 13:18,20
`complaint
`9:9
`concerning
`3:6
`concluded
`3:23
`conclusion
`9:7
`conduct
`7:24
`conference
`3:4 12:25 14:8 16:10
`confidential
`5:1
`confusion
`4:9
`consider
`4:2
`consideration
`7:25 8:5
`considered
`7:21
`contain
`10:2
`context
`14:20
`
`belief
`9:7
`believe
`13:14
`beyond
`8:20
`bite
`6:22
`Board
`1:3 3:22 4:2,23 5:6,11
`5:11,15 6:20 7:9,15
`7:18 8:3 10:9,12
`Board's
`3:25 7:23 8:1
`burden
`8:20
`
`C
`
`C 2
`
`:1 17:1,1
`call
`12:25 14:8 16:10,13
`carriers
`9:7,9
`case
`6:12 8:3,5 13:7 14:14
`14:22 15:8
`categories
`9:25
`certain
`4:19 6:17
`certify
`17:9
`challenge
`11:21
`Chan
`2:8 3:1,2 6:5 12:1,4,11
`12:16 14:24 15:4,16
`chana@pepperlaw....
`2:8
`changed
`5:17
`CHEN
`9:24
`Christmas
`
`A
`
`ability
`7:23
`able
`9:15
`above-mentioned
`1:16
`acceptance
`10:22,24
`accepted
`11:5,7
`accurately
`14:2
`acknowledged
`10:7
`additional
`3:6,20 5:16
`address
`3:18 4:7
`addressing
`8:17
`adjourned
`16:13
`Administrative
`1:15
`admitted
`10:4
`advance
`6:25
`afternoon
`3:1
`agreement
`9:22 10:3 11:13 13:25
`agreements
`10:2,8
`ahead
`6:16
`Andrews
`4:10
`Andrew's
`15:1
`Andy
`2:8 3:2
`APPEAL
`1:3
`
`appears
`4:8
`apple
`6:22
`approaching
`6:3
`appropriate
`13:3,8 14:10
`argued
`12:25 14:6
`argument
`7:8,8
`arguments
`6:18,19,21,23
`Armas
`1:18 17:7,19
`assume
`9:22
`Attorneys
`2:3,7
`AT&T
`3:12 4:13 10:6,18,20
`11:1,17
`authorization
`3:5 6:1
`authorizes
`5:11
`available
`3:24 13:2
`
`B
`
`back
`6:20 7:9
`bar
`15:19
`barely
`15:10
`basically
`13:17
`Bates
`10:10
`behalf
`10:25 11:6,25
`belated
`8:7,7
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`Page 2
`
`envisioned
`7:12
`equivalent
`3:16
`ESQ
`2:3,4,8,9
`establish
`9:17
`established
`11:3 12:9
`establishing
`3:11
`Eve
`8:18
`event
`15:9
`evidence
`3:10,14 4:3,23 5:22
`6:21 7:2 10:15 11:10
`11:20 12:16,18
`exact
`7:6
`exactly
`13:12,14
`exercised
`10:13
`exist
`10:4 11:11
`existence
`10:7,16
`exists
`11:11
`expeditiously
`5:25
`extent
`10:13 11:12
`
`F
`
`F 1
`
`7:1
`fact
`6:23 13:24
`factors
`7:20 14:15
`fairly
`
`8:8,10,12,15,16 13:1
`13:4,6,12 15:7,18,23
`discussed
`11:10
`discussion
`16:9
`disputes
`8:16
`distinctly
`8:13
`district
`4:10,15,19 8:11 9:16
`11:2,5 12:21 13:2,5
`13:12,15 14:3,12,17
`15:21,24,25
`document
`5:8 9:14
`documents
`4:7,19 5:1,3,10 9:20
`9:20,25 12:2,6,9
`15:13
`Droesch
`1:14 16:6
`due
`3:9
`d/b/a
`1:5
`
`E
`
`E 2
`
`:1,1 17:1,1
`earlier
`14:8
`effect
`9:12,23
`effectively
`7:24
`efficiently
`7:24
`Engellenner
`2:9 12:5,7
`engellennert@pepp...
`2:9
`entitled
`5:23
`
`control
`11:8,23 12:10,15,17
`controlling
`12:20
`controls
`10:24
`convene
`16:9
`correct
`13:10 14:9,13 17:11
`correctly
`7:18 8:4 9:14
`COUNTY
`17:5
`course
`14:14
`court
`4:10,15,19 8:11 9:16
`11:2,4,5 12:12,21
`13:2,6,12,16 14:3,12
`14:17 15:1,21,24,25
`Cummings
`2:3 6:7,8 9:19 13:10
`14:9,13,19 16:4
`customers
`10:18 11:7,25 12:13
`cuts
`8:6
`
`D
`
`date
`1:17 3:25 9:9
`day
`17:14
`deadline
`6:3 7:1
`December
`1:12
`decision
`3:22 4:1 5:18,21 7:16
`7:18 8:1 15:1
`defense
`10:25 11:8,24
`deficiencies
`5:22
`
`definitive
`4:16
`Delaware
`4:11
`delegations
`10:25
`demonstrate
`8:20 12:20
`demonstrates
`9:2,6
`demonstrating
`9:3
`denied
`3:22 5:15 13:6,11,13
`13:17,24 14:1
`DENTONS
`2:2
`denying
`7:16
`designated
`5:1
`designed
`8:14,15
`different
`8:13
`diminished
`5:20
`direct
`15:17
`directly
`11:21
`disagree
`9:17,19
`disagreement
`14:21
`disagreements
`10:16
`disagrees
`14:16,18
`discoverable
`14:4
`discovery
`3:6,21,24 4:7,11,17
`5:7,12,16,19,23 6:9
`6:24 7:10,17,20,22
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`Page 3
`
`L
`
`L 1
`
`:14 2:4
`LABS
`1:5
`leads
`9:6
`legitimate
`15:7
`liberal
`8:15
`litigation
`4:25 8:11 10:11,15
`11:8,14
`litigations
`11:24 12:18,21
`LLP
`2:2,7
`LOCATION
`1:5
`Locationet
`1:8 3:3
`long
`15:2
`losing
`6:19
`lost
`6:21 7:8
`
`M
`
`making
`6:17
`manner
`6:10
`MARK
`2:4
`mark.hogge@dento...
`2:5
`mean
`12:15
`means
`3:17
`Melissa
`1:17 17:7,19
`merits
`
`instant
`11:18
`instituted
`15:20
`institution
`3:21,25
`interest
`6:19 7:22
`IPR
`4:14,17 6:25 7:4,5,17
`8:2,2 11:19 13:1,22
`15:5,20
`issue
`4:12 15:18,23,25 16:1
`issued
`5:18 13:15
`issues
`13:18
`
`J
`
`J 1
`
`:14
`January
`17:14
`Jimenez-De
`1:18 17:7,19
`judge
`4:10 6:5 9:13 12:1,5,8
`12:14,22 13:6 14:5
`14:10,16,16,17,23,25
`15:2,15 16:2,4,6,6,7
`Judges
`1:16
`justice
`7:23
`
`K
`
`K 1
`
`:15
`know
`8:13 9:20 11:11 12:9
`13:10,13,16,23 14:2
`knows
`5:9
`KRISTEN
`1:14
`
`14:6
`February
`3:9 6:3
`file
`3:5 6:1
`filed
`7:7 15:4
`filing
`9:8 11:18 13:21
`find
`8:17
`first
`4:8 5:14 6:8,12,12,15
`6:25 7:4,17 8:2 10:2
`foregoing
`17:10
`forum
`13:8 14:11
`forward
`4:3
`four
`9:24 11:15,21
`framework
`7:11
`full
`5:9 17:11
`further
`3:11 16:3,5
`
`G
`
`getting
`15:13
`get-go
`8:24
`given
`16:11
`GLENN
`1:14
`goes
`11:21
`going
`4:2 6:16 16:9
`Good
`3:1
`granting
`
`8:6
`guarded
`12:2
`guide
`7:14
`
`H
`
`half
`5:9
`HAMILTON
`2:7
`hand
`17:14
`happy
`9:11
`hear
`6:6 9:11
`heard
`9:5,11
`held
`1:16
`hereunto
`17:13
`HOGGE
`2:4
`holiday
`16:12
`holidays
`6:2
`Honor
`12:7,12 14:24
`Honors
`3:1
`
`I
`
`identified
`10:9
`indemnification
`9:22 10:3,22,23 11:6
`11:13 12:14 13:25
`indemnified
`12:13
`indicate
`16:12
`information
`3:16
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`Page 4
`
`3:6
`patent
`1:1,3,9,15 2:7 3:2,4,8
`3:10,14,15 4:5,18,22
`5:2,7,19,20,25 6:9,13
`6:16,24 7:11,16 8:19
`9:14,21 14:11
`pattern
`6:13
`PEPPER
`2:7
`period
`5:19
`Perry
`1:14 6:5 9:13 12:1,5,8
`12:14,22 14:5,10,16
`14:23 15:2,15 16:2,4
`16:6
`petition
`11:19
`Petitioner
`1:6 2:3 3:7,12 4:12 5:3
`5:6,9 6:6 9:8 10:5,17
`10:20 11:16 12:23,24
`16:3
`Petitioner's
`3:13 10:22,24
`place
`13:3 15:13
`please
`6:6 13:9 15:3
`point
`4:8
`points
`5:24
`position
`7:3 16:12
`possession
`3:13
`practice
`7:14
`prejudiced
`3:15
`preliminary
`4:3 6:17 7:1,7
`
`preparation
`11:18
`preparing
`3:8
`present
`4:22
`presented
`5:10
`pretty
`6:10
`prevail
`6:23
`prevents
`4:25
`previous
`5:15
`prior
`3:18,19,21,24 10:8
`12:24
`privileged
`10:14
`privity
`3:7,11 4:12 5:23 6:19
`9:4,17 10:1 11:22
`15:18,23
`privy
`9:8
`proceeding
`3:19 4:14,18,20,22 5:4
`5:13
`proceedings
`3:19 7:12,25 8:12,14
`11:2 17:10
`produce
`5:3
`produced
`4:20 9:15 10:10 11:12
`proof
`3:23
`protective
`4:24 9:16 12:2
`providing
`10:12
`provision
`15:19
`
`4:18
`office
`1:1 7:12
`Okay
`12:22 14:23 15:15
`16:2,8
`once
`8:7
`open
`11:4 12:11 13:16 15:1
`opinion
`15:12
`opposed
`5:4
`order
`4:24 9:16 12:3 13:15
`15:1 16:11
`outrageous
`6:11
`owner
`1:9 2:7 3:2,10,14,15
`4:6,18 5:2,7,25 6:9
`6:16,24 8:20 9:14,21
`14:11
`Owners
`3:4 4:22
`owner's
`3:8 5:19,20 7:16
`o0o
`2:13
`
`P
`
`P 2
`
`:1,1
`Panel
`16:9
`paper
`8:1,2 13:15
`papers
`10:8
`part
`7:25
`parties
`6:18 11:9 13:19,21
`party
`
`8:9
`missing
`9:10
`MOLLAAGHABA...
`2:10
`mollaaghababar@p...
`2:10
`Monday
`16:11
`motion
`3:5,20 6:2
`muster
`7:3
`
`N
`
`N 2
`
`:1
`narrowly
`10:1
`necessarily
`12:15
`needed
`5:7
`new
`1:19 9:1 17:4,5,9
`Notary
`1:18 17:8
`noted
`8:4 16:15
`notes
`5:21 17:12
`notion
`6:8
`November
`3:20
`Number
`8:2,3,3
`Numbers
`10:10
`
`O
`obligation
`10:23 11:6
`obtain
`3:16 4:6,17
`obtained
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`Page 5
`
`5:22 10:1
`showing
`11:22
`similar
`14:7
`Snedden
`1:15 16:7
`sorry
`13:19
`sought
`4:6,14 6:24 13:1
`speak
`14:2
`specific
`10:2
`specifically
`11:22 15:17
`speculation
`8:21
`Sprint
`3:12 4:13 10:5,18,20
`10:25 11:17
`standard
`7:21 8:10,11,19
`State
`1:19 17:4,8
`STATES
`1:1
`stenographic
`17:11
`stenographically
`1:17
`submits
`3:10
`submitted
`10:8
`support
`7:3
`supports
`12:17
`sure
`6:7 13:24 14:19
`Systems
`1:8 3:3
`
`responsible
`15:10,10,11
`REZA
`2:10
`right
`12:16 15:13
`ruled
`4:11
`ruling
`4:16
`
`S
`
`S 2
`
`:1
`saw
`13:16
`says
`13:7
`scope
`13:11,13
`Scott
`2:3 6:7
`scott.cummings@de...
`2:4
`se
`14:1
`second
`5:14 6:22 7:5 10:13
`15:5,20
`Section
`15:19
`seeking
`3:5 9:25 11:15,20
`12:19
`seen
`12:1,5
`set
`17:13
`severely
`3:15
`SHERIDAN
`1:15
`Shorthand
`1:18 17:7
`show
`
`regard
`13:21
`regarding
`4:11 5:14 10:21 11:17
`regards
`6:18
`related
`15:18,23
`relevant
`10:3
`repeated
`6:13,14,15
`repetitive
`8:16
`reported
`1:17
`Reporter
`1:18 17:8
`representations
`11:4
`represented
`12:11
`representing
`3:2
`request
`5:5 7:16,22 8:7,10
`11:23 13:17,25 14:7
`14:11,20 15:5,17
`requested
`3:4 5:2 6:1,9 9:2
`requesting
`6:21 7:9 8:22 15:17
`requests
`5:15 7:20
`required
`4:16
`respect
`8:9 11:23
`respective
`11:1
`respond
`13:9
`response
`3:8 4:4 5:20 6:17 7:1,7
`15:16
`
`provisions
`10:4 12:19
`PTAB
`13:8 15:6,14 16:1
`Public
`1:19 17:8
`purpose
`3:7 15:7
`purposes
`5:12
`put
`4:3
`p.m
`1:12 16:15
`
`question
`12:23
`questions
`16:7,8
`quite
`8:6
`quoted
`15:22
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`R 2
`
`:1 17:1
`read
`14:25 15:3
`real
`6:18
`really
`14:1 15:6
`reasons
`4:21 5:14
`recall
`12:24 13:14 14:6
`received
`5:8
`recognized
`7:15,19
`record
`13:17 17:10
`referring
`9:21
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - 12/24/2014
`Page 6
`
`5:23 11:15,20 12:19
`16:8
`WHEREOF
`17:13
`WITNESS
`17:13
`
`Y
`
`Yeah
`14:19
`York
`1:19 17:4,5,9
`
`1:01
`1:12
`1:15
`16:15
`199
`8:2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2014
`1:12
`2015
`3:9 6:4 17:14
`23rd
`3:9 6:3
`24
`1:12
`
`3
`
`5
`
`8
`
`315B
`15:19,24
`34
`8:2,3
`
`5th
`17:14
`
`:3
`
`8 8
`
`4:2
`type
`8:16
`types
`7:20
`T-Mobil
`10:21
`T-Mobile
`3:13 4:13 10:6,18 11:1
`11:17
`
`U
`underlying
`4:24 10:14 11:13,24
`12:17
`understand
`14:5 16:2
`understanding
`13:5
`understood
`9:13
`UNITED
`1:1
`upcoming
`6:2
`use
`15:14
`useful
`8:23 9:3
`utility
`8:22
`
`V
`voluntarily
`5:4
`
`W
`
`W 2
`
`:3
`waiting
`7:6
`WAVEMARKET
`1:5
`way
`10:11
`we're
`
`T
`
`T 1
`
`7:1,1
`tailored
`10:1
`taken
`17:12
`target
`3:25
`telephone
`1:16
`tender
`10:21
`Thank
`6:5 16:13
`think
`6:10 7:13,14 8:5 14:13
`15:6
`third
`3:6 4:8 10:19
`THOMAS
`2:9
`three
`4:5 11:7
`time
`1:17 16:15
`timeliness
`7:19
`timely
`6:10
`today
`8:17,25
`told
`5:6
`TRADEMARK
`1:1
`transcript
`14:25 17:11
`trial
`1:3 6:12,14,15 7:13
`truth
`5:9
`try
`5:18 6:22 16:10
`Two
`
`617-542-0039
`
`Merrill Corporation - Boston
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`