`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
