Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP ) Case Nos.
` INC., AND HUAWEI ) IPR2014-01197,
` TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., ) -01207, -01209,
` Petitioner, ) -01226, -01463,
` V. ) -01544; and
` CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC. ) IPRs2015-00772,
` Patent Owner ) -00773, -00777,
` ___________________________ ) -00822, -00825,
` Patent 6,425,035 ) -00852, -00854
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE BEFORE A
` PANEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES:
` JUDGE HYUN J. JUNG
` JUDGE NEIL T. POWELL
` JUDGE KRISTINA M. KALAN
` HELD ON
` FRIDAY APRIL 24, 2015
`
`Reported by: BRENDA R. COUNTZ, RPR-CRR CSR NO. 12563
`Job No: 92922
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 1
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP ) Case Nos.
` INC., AND HUAWEI ) IPR2014-01197,
` TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., ) -01207, -01209,
` Petitioner, ) -01226, -01463,
` V. ) -01544; and
` CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC. ) IPRs2015-00772,
` Patent Owner ) -00773, -00777,
` ___________________________ ) -00822, -00825,
` Patent 6,425,035 ) -00852, -00854
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE BEFORE A
` PANEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES:
` JUDGE HYUN J. JUNG
` JUDGE NEIL T. POWELL
` JUDGE KRISTINA M. KALAN
` HELD ON
` FRIDAY APRIL 24, 2015
`
`Reported by: BRENDA R. COUNTZ, RPR-CRR CSR NO. 12563
`Job No: 92922
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 1
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Telephone conference taken
`telephonically from 4921 Escalon Avenue, Los
`Angeles, California, on Friday, April 24, 2015,
`before Brenda R. Countz, CSR No. 12563.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 2
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
`FOR ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP, INC., AND HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.:
` OBLON McLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
` BY: GREG GARDELLA, ESQ.
` (Via telephone)
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, VA 22314
`
` ORACLE CORPORATION
` BY: RACHEL MAGUIRE, ESQ.
` (Via Telephone)
` 500 Eldorado Boulevard
` MS BRM01-200
` Broomfield, CO 80021
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 3
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (Continued)
`FOR THE NETAPP, INC:
` NETAPP
` BY: CYNTHIA ROSSER, ESQ.
` (Via Telephone)
` 495 East Java Drive
` Sunnyvale, CA 94089
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS CISCO AND QUANTUM:
` HAYNES AND BOONE
` BY: ANDREW EHMKE, ESQ.
` SCOTT JARRETT, ESQ.
` (Via Telephone)
` 2323 Victory Ave
` Dallas, TX 75219
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 4
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (Continued)
`
`Page 5
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
` WONG CABELLO LUTSCH RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI
` BY: JAMES HALL, ESQ.
` (Via Telephone)
` 20333 SH 249
` Houston, TX 77070
`
` - AND -
`
` SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
` BY: STEVEN SPRINKLE, ESQ.
` (Via Telephone)
` 1301 West 25th St
` Austin, TX 78705
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 5
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` (10:00 A.M.)
`
` JUDGE JUNG: With me are Judges Powell,
`Kalan and Lee. Do we have anybody for Petitioner
`Oracle, Netapp and Huawei?
` MR. GARDELLA: Yes, Your Honor. This
`is Greg Gardella. I am also joined potentially
`by Cindy Rosser from Netapp. And Eunhae Park
`from Oracle and I may also be joined by Scott
`McKeown from Oblon. I haven't heard him on the
`call yet though.
` MS. MAGUIRE: This is Rachel Maguire
`from Oracle. I'm going to be on the call instead
`of Eunhae Park.
` JUDGE JUNG: Very well.
` MS. ROSSER: This is Cindy Rosser for
`Netapp. I am on the call.
` MR. GARDELLA: And that's it for those
`three parties, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. GARDELLA: And by the way, as you
`probably heard, we do have a court reporter on
`and we will file the transcript promptly.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay, thank you.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 6
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
` Do we have anybody for petitioner Dot
`Hill Systems.
` MR. ARMON: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`Orion Armon with Cooley on behalf of petitioner
`Dot Hill Systems Corp.
` JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Armon.
` Is there anybody here on behalf of
`Quantum?
` MR. EHMKE: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`Andrew Ehmke of Haynes and Boone. And I have
`with me Scott Jarrett.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And for Patenter
`Crossroads, do we have anybody there.
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`James Hall with Wong, Cabello for Crossroads and
`I believe Steve Sprinkle with Sprinkle IP Law
`Group is also on the line for Crossroads.
` JUDGE JUNG: That's Steve Sprinkle?
` MR. HALL: Yes.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And is there
`anybody else who has not yet made an
`introduction?
` (No Response.)
` JUDGE JUNG: All right. The purpose of
`this conference call is to discuss various
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 7
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
`e-mails we've received over the past few months
`trying to consolidate or coordinate the schedules
`and maybe expedite the patent owners preliminary
`response to certain cases and other requests from
`other parties.
` I like to tell the petitioners for all
`the parties that we did receive your e-mails it
`looks like today at 12:30 discussing the first
`and second group of cases. So we will also
`discuss that.
` Also, before I begin, I'd like to know
`the status of the related litigation and some of
`the papers filed in some of these cases. They
`mentioned separate suits against each petitioner
`in the Western District of Texas.
` So let me start with Mr. Gardella. Do
`you know the status of your particular suit?
` MR. GARDELLA: I believe the suits are
`all pending and have not been stayed yet.
`Rachel, you can confirm but I believe that's the
`case.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Ms. Rosser and Ms.
`Maguire is that correct?
` MS. ROSSER: That is correct. There is
`a pending motion to stay in the suits but it has
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 8
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
`not been ruled upon.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Mr. Armon, do you
`agree?
` MR. ARMON: Yes, Your Honor. That's
`the case as to all of the lawsuits pending in the
`Western District of Texas. They are all pending.
`Motions for stay have been filed but have not yet
`been ruled on.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Mr. Ehmke and Mr.
`Sprinkle and Mr. Hall do you have anything to
`add?
` MR. HALL: That is correct, Your Honor,
`what the other parties have said.
` THE COURT: Okay. And one other thing.
`We are dealing with several parties. Have any
`settlement discussions been raised or are there
`any settlement discussions ongoing?
` I know they might be confidential but
`if you don't want discuss that now, it's okay.
`But if there is anything that you can discuss
`please bring it up now. Mr. Gardella?
` MR. GARDELLA: On that score I think it
`would be efficient to defer to Mr. Hall. He's
`kind of the funnel for all those discussions.
` JUDGE JUNG: All right, Mr. Hall.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 9
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. There have
`been settlement discussions with petitioner
`quantum and petitioner Huawei. But it doesn't
`appear we are very close to settlement at this
`point.
` But obviously, we'll keep the board
`apprised if we are making any progress with any
`of the petitioners.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you.
` And it looks like there are three new
`cases that these particular panels were not aware
`of before, 1063, 1064 and 1066. But are there
`any other cases that do not look like we've
`mentioned in anyway before that are related to
`these patents related by Crossroads, Mr. Hall or
`Mr. Sprinkle.
` MR. HALL: We're not aware of any other
`cases, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. All right.
`Although the parties have coordinated together to
`propose a separate agenda, I'd like to stick with
`my original agenda. And I'll try to graft on
`your proposal onto the agenda I sent out earlier.
` So lets begin with cases IPR 2014-1197,
`2014-1226, 2015-777, 2015-822 and 2015-825. They
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 10
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
`challenge U.S. Patent 6,425,035. And I will
`refer to the patent as the 035 patent, and I will
`refer to this group of cases as the 035 cases
`hereafter.
` Now, it looks like from the e-mail, in
`my quick review, the parties have agreed that the
`patent owner will file a patent owner preliminary
`response but that filing will not be expedited.
` Is that correct Mr. Hall or
`Mr. Sprinkle.
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor, that was
`what we discussed with the petitioner earlier
`this morning.
` And Your Honor, let me add as well the
`parties propose using the schedule in the 1463
`proceeding for all of these proceedings. One of
`the reasons that that was agreeable to the patent
`owner was that the preliminary responses would
`not be accelerated which we understood petitioner
`to agree to simply for the reason that if it was
`accelerated and we were under that schedule it
`would make the preliminary responses and the
`patent owner's responses due approximately the
`same time depending obviously on the
`acceleration.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 11
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
` But that was not something that the
`patent owner wanted simply because of not having
`sufficient resources to be able to deal with all
`of the responses and preliminary responses at the
`same time.
` JUDGE JUNG: All right. I realize in
`some of the 035 cases that there is no expediting
`of the patent owner's preliminary response that
`the patent owner's responses --
` I'm sorry. Some of these cases will be
`joined after the patent owner's response in some
`of the earlier cases. Is the patent owner okay
`with that?
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. What we
`discussed with the petitioners and proposed to
`the board is as far as the motions for joinder
`the case is subject to the motions for joinder.
`We are not opposed to joinder should the Board
`decide that institution is appropriate.
` Obviously, we believe that the cases
`should not be instituted and we want to file our
`preliminary responses to that effect. But should
`the board then ultimately determine that they
`will institute, we don't oppose joinder and using
`the existing schedule based on the petitions and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 12
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
`the motions for joinder statements that
`petitioners will be assuming purely an understudy
`role as they set forth there.
` So that's not a problem with us if they
`would be put on the same schedule.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And it looks like
`out of the 035 cases one particular case, IPR
`2015-0077 has been placed in the parties'
`proposed second group. Let me see. Bear with me
`while I read over your paragraph. (Pause.)
` Mr. Hall and Mr. Sprinkle can either
`one of you kind of summarize what the party's
`proposal is for IPR 2015-0077 and other cases in
`that second group.
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. As we
`state in the e-mail, the parties don't believe
`the Board should take any action with respect to
`these at this time.
` Essentially all of these proceedings
`are the first set filed by Netapp are, for want
`of a better word, basically do-over petitions.
` They repeat the grounds from the
`initial set of petitions filed by Oracle and
`Netapp and Huawei. However, they correct the
`deficiencies which the Board noted in its
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 13
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
`decision denying institution decision in which it
`denied institution on certain claims and grounds.
` So they are attempting to correct those
`in the second set. So those petitions and then
`the very recently filed Oracle petitions seeking
`to join them raised the same grounds as in the
`first set of petitions filed and there will be
`some new grounds and new claims that are not
`currently in either set of proceedings from
`Oracle or Cisco.
` So I think both parties agree that the
`Board's decisions in the earlier cases made moot
`some of those grounds. And obviously patent
`owner is going to request the Board not institute
`trial at all in those cases in it's preliminary
`response.
` So right now we would think that the
`best thing is to leave those proceedings to the
`side and should the Board decide to institute the
`parties will be in a better position at that time
`to decide the effect of the earlier proceedings
`on those proceedings and the Board will be in
`that same position.
` JUDGE JUNG: I see. Thank you. All
`right. Let me turn to the panel and see if they
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 14
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`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
`
`have any questions.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` JUDGE JUNG: Hello, this is Judge Jung
`again. Sorry for the delay. We were discussing
`your e-mail.
` MR. HALL: Your Honor, this is Mr. Hall
`again. The one thing I wanted to address that I
`may have left the wrong impression regarding
`consolidation, my previous comments are directed
`to the later filed where we referred to the
`second group petitions.
` As far as consolidation of, I guess,
`the first group of petitions that are referenced
`in the e-mail from Mr. Gardella, patent owner
`does not oppose consolidation.
` We think there may be some efficiencies
`traded by it but on that score we will defer to
`what the Board's ultimate determination is.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you,
`Mr. Hall.
` Are there any questions from the
`parties for the panel? There are no questions
`from the panel to the parties.
` MR. HALL: Your Honor, if the board is
`considering consolidation, one of the details we
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 15
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
`would want to address after the board makes that
`determination or if the board believes it's going
`to is the page limits for responses and so forth
`and how to put all of these proceedings together.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you,
`Mr. Hall. Yes, we will consider that.
` MR. GARDELLA: Mr. Gardella on behalf
`of Oracle, Netapp and Huawei.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay, Mr. Gardella.
` MR. GARDELLA: It's a comment maybe
`more than a question but it could be either. I
`will leave that to you.
` So, in the event Your Honors are
`considering consolidation, I guess two aspects.
`Number 1, based upon the discussions the parties
`had it doesn't seem as though there is a material
`distinction between that and the joinder and
`synchronized schedules.
` So it's Oracle, Netapp and Huawei's
`position that consolidation doesn't appear to be
`necessary. To the extent Your Honors are
`envisioning that consolidation might occur, the
`Cisco -- Nevertheless might occur, I should
`say-- the Cisco and Quantum petitions raised
`different grounds than the Netapp, Oracle, Huawei
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 16
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
`petitions.
` And for that reason if consolidation
`were to occur, we'd have to confront and deal
`with the one-voice issue and even the single
`ground of the Cisco Quantum petition it's based
`on some of the same art but not all the art even
`as to that single ground overlaps completely.
` So we would propose that there are
`substantial complexities and potential acute
`prejudices which would occur if consolidation
`were granted and the board were particularly to
`enforce page limits and the one-voice rule.
` So we would request briefing of that
`issue to the extent the board is considering
`consolidation. Because again, that could in fact
`raise substantial prejudice from petitioners'
`perspective.
` THE COURT: At this point we are just
`raising consolidation as a means to assert some
`efficiency in these cases. But thank you for
`raising that point.
` If we get to the point where we are
`actually considering consolidating these cases,
`we will discuss that with the parties as well.
` At this point we are just considering
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 17
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
`different options on how to make these cases
`proceed on the same schedule or in a more
`coordinated fashion than they are now.
` I'm sorry, was that Mr. Gardella?
` MR. HALL: I'm sorry, Your Honor. This
`is Mr. Hall. I guess my question was are we
`following the agenda that you had sent, where we
`are just discussing the 035 petitions and we're
`going to move on.
` JUDGE JUNG: That is correct.
` MR. HALL: Okay. All right.
` JUDGE JUNG: So, if there are no other
`questions or issues for the 035 cases I will move
`on to the next set of cases. Actually, it
`appears to me that maybe we could wrap this up a
`little bit quicker.
` For the remainder of the cases, the
`second group of cases on my agenda they were IPR
`2014-1207, 1209, 1544 and IPRs 2015-773 and 852.
`They challenge U.S. Patent number 7,051,147 which
`I will refer to as the 147 patent.
` Now, after reviewing your e-mail it
`looks like what we discussed for the 035 cases
`also applied for the 147 cases. But if that's
`not correct, let me know starting with Mr. Hall
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 18
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
`and Mr. Sprinkle.
` MR. HALL: That is correct, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And do any of the
`petitioners object to that?
` MR. GARDELLA: I would just add-- This
`is Mr. Gardella-- that you might want to add
`1064 to the 147 bucket. That's one of the brand
`new petitions.
` They were just in the petition
`verification stage, by the way I think, when Your
`Honor sent out the e-mail. So that's why they
`may not have been on your radar screen.
` JUDGE JUNG: All right. That also
`challenges the 147 patent, I take it.
` MR. GARDELLA: The 147 is 1064, yes.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you,
`Mr. Gardella.
` And then if there's no objection we
`will move on to the next group of cases that
`challenge the U.S. patent 7,051,041 patent. And
`that includes IPR 2014-1463. And IPRs 2015-776
`and 854.
` Are there any differences or issues or
`other questions that the parties want to bring up
`starting with Mr. Hall or Mr. Sprinkle.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 19
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`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. HALL: Your Honor, nothing in
`particular with these. However, depending on the
`Board's decision as far as scheduling, we may
`have one more issue to bring up if the Board is
`going to not make a decision on the schedule
`today or put that off for a week.
` I don't know what the board's timetable
`is. However, we do have pending responses due in
`two of these sets of cases that are due Monday.
` And therefore, if the Board is not
`going to adopt the party's proposal of moving the
`schedule for these proceedings then we would
`request a week extension at least to give the
`time for the Board to make a decision so that
`filing the responses themselves will somehow
`impact the feasibility of putting these on the
`same schedule.
` MR. GARDELLA: This is Mr. Gardella of
`Oracle, Netapp and Huawei have no objection to
`that. It's in our cases, so to speak, that the
`responses are due.
` And I understand Mr. Hall's proposal
`will be given a week such that the Board can
`decide what they are going to do or what you are
`going to do with regard to the issues on the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 20
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
`agenda today and I think that is quite
`reasonable.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
` MR. EHMKE: And this is Andy Ehmke on
`behalf of Cisco and Quantum. No additional
`comments and no objections to that either, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Ehmke.
` Mr. Armon.
` MR. ARMON: Your Honor, no objections
`from Dot Hill Systems Corp.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
`Armon.
` All right. And we have one outlier
`case, IPR 2015-00772 which challenges U.S. patent
`7,987,311. And I'm not positive but it may be
`one of the new cases that also challenges the 311
`patent. Let me see.
` MR. GARDELLA: Yes. It's the 772 case,
`Your Honor. This is Greg Gardella speaking.
` And on agenda item number 4 which I
`guess that was the 041 patent, you might want to
`add 1066 to your list. That is the most recently
`filed joinder petition.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 21
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`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. GARDELLA: And as to the last one
`there is no corresponding brand new case that was
`filed in the last few days. It's just the 772.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. The last thing I
`wanted to talk about was having a combined oral
`hearing for the various different patents and the
`related cases.
` But it sounds like the parties are--
`There seems to be an agreement that maybe a
`combined oral hearing would be best for
`everybody.
` Is that correct for Mr. Hall?
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: And Mr. Gardella, any
`objections to a combined oral hearing?
` MR. GARDELLA: It may turn out that
`they might be at a separate time over the same
`day, but we will try to coordinate all these
`cases on the same day if possible, depending on
`the availability of the hearing room.
` JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Armon, any objections?
` MR. ARMON: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Ehmke.
` MR. EHMKE: No objections to that
`proposed plan, Your Honor. No.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 22
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`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 JUNG: All right. I'm going to
`go on mute and talk to the panel and see if they
`have any further questions on the other group of
`cases. I will be back soon.
` (Discussion held off the record.)
` MR. HALL: While they are caucusing,
`Cindy and Rachel, anything additional that you'd
`like to raise before we adjourn?
` MS. MAGUIRE: Nothing from Rachel,
`thanks.
` MS. ROSSER: Nothing from us, thanks.
` MR. ARMON: Is there anything you want
`to raise with me on the other line?
` MR. HALL: Nothing from me.
` JUDGE JUNG: All right. The panel has
`discussed the parties' proposals regarding the
`first case. And in the e-mail sent this morning
`the first case group is IPR 2014-1197, -1207,
`-1209, -1226, -1463, -1544, and IPRs 2015-822,
`825, 852 and 854.
` The panel generally agrees that we can
`adjust the schedules for those cases to match the
`schedule in the 1463 case.
` So the parties can stipulate that the
`patent owner can delay his filing of this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 23
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
`response in cases 1197, 1207 and 1209 from April
`27 to May 26th which I believe is the due date in
`the 1463 case for the patent owner response.
` MR. HALL: That's agreeable for patent
`owner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And any objections
`from the petitioners?
` MR. GARDELLA: This is Mr. Gardella.
`No objection here, Your Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Armon?
` MR. ARMON: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Ehmke?
` MR. EHMKE: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JUNG: Okay. If we need to we
`will send out an order discussing what we just
`talked about today on this conference.
` And the panel appreciates that the
`parties were able to coordinate amongst
`themselves and provide a proposal.
` I hope everyone has a good weekend.
`And if there are no other questions or issues
`this call is adjourned.
` MR. HALL: Thank you, Your Honor.
` MR. GARDELLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Have a good weekend.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 24
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you.
`(Whereupon, the teleconference was
` adjourned at 10:40 o'clock, a.m.)
`
`Page 25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 25
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
` I, BRENDA R. COUNTZ, Certified Shorthand
`Reporter No. 12563 for the State of California,
`do hereby certify:
` That said teleconference was taken down
`by me in shorthand at the time herein named and
`thereafter reduced to typewriting via
`computer-aided transcription under my direction;
`and that the same is a true, correct, and
`complete transcript of said proceedings.
` I further certify that I am not related
`to any parties thereto or interested in the
`outcome of the action.
` In witness whereof, I have hereunto
`subscribed my name this 27th day of April
`2015.
`
` __________________________________
` Brenda R. Countz, CSR No. 12563
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1040, pg. 26
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
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
