throbber
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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, §
`NETAPP INC. AND HUAWEI §
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. §
` §
` Petitioners, § IPR2014-01197
` § IPR2014-01207
`VS. § IPR2014-01209
` §
` §
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, §
`INC. §
` §
` Patent Owner. §
`
` TELECONFERENCE WITH THE PANEL
` JULY 16, 2015
` CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` EXHIBIT 1217
`
` Job No: 95252
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1217, pg. 1
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 2
` THE COURT: Hello. This is Judge Jung in a
`telephone conference for Cases IPR2014-01197, -01207 and
`-01209. I have with me judges with Judges Kalan and Lee.
` Do I have anyone for the petitioner in these
`related cases?
` MR. GARDELLA: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`Greg Gardella from Oblon on behalf of Petitioner. I
`believe I'm the only one who's going to be speaking. We
`do have a court reporter here, and I do have others in the
`room with me if you'd like me to introduce them.
` THE COURT: If you're the only one that's
`going to be speaking, that's fine. Thank you,
`Mr. Gardella.
` Do we have anyone for the patent owner?
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. This is James
`Hall for the patent owner. Similar situation to
`Mr. Gardella, and we're both in the same room.
` THE COURT: Okay. So we have -- we received
`an e-mail shortly, and before we begin, Mr. Hall, can you
`just describe what's happening and what the purpose of
`this conference call is?
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. So the
`petitioner is taking the deposition of Patent Owner's
`expert declarant. They've concluded their
`cross-examination. We were recessing to prepare our
`
`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. 1217, pg. 2
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`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
`
`redirect, and actually before it went off record,
`Mr. Gardella stated that they would object to any
`conference between the attorneys for Patent Owner and the
`expert during the recess, and that they would preserve
`their -- or they're reserving their right to move to
`strike the testimony, any testimony that resulted after
`that.
` So we thought it appropriate to get the
`Board involved before we did any such consultation because
`we don't want to do anything improper. But based on, you
`know, the case law that we have seen, such consultation
`would not be proper -- or it would be proper, and we
`wanted the Board's guidance on this topic. And, you know,
`I have cases that I could cite to the Board and can more
`narrowly focus the inquiry, but that's generally what's
`going on.
` THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Gardella, do you
`agree that's the events that transpired before this
`telephone conference?
` MR. GARDELLA: Yeah. There are some other
`relevant events that I'll get to when it's my turn to
`talk, essentially. But, yeah, I generally agree with
`Mr. Hall's summary.
` THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hall, you said you
`had some case law as the basis for your request for a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1217, pg. 3
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`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
`
`conference with the witness. Can you briefly describe
`those?
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor. I have three
`cases that we've been able to locate since the deposition
`was recessed. The first is Google, Inc. v. Jongerius
`Panoramic Technologies. It's Case IPR 2013-00191.
` In that case, the -- I'm not sure of the
`precise situation before the Board or the precise
`character of how the question came to the board, but the
`question was exactly the same as what's presented here,
`where the Board looked to the testimony guidelines in
`Appendix D of the Office Trial Practice Guide regarding
`the impropriety of consulting with a witness during
`cross-examination but noted that it's expressly or -- and
`noted that it is permitted to consult with a witness once
`cross-examination has concluded and before redirect
`examination has begun.
` I mean, the quote from the case is, "Patent
`Owner's counsel was permitted to confer with the witness
`before redirect examination begins."
` THE COURT: Okay.
` MR. HALL: I have another case, which I
`believe is the next chronologically, Schott Gemtron v. SSW
`Holding Company, which is Case IPR2013-00358.
` In that case, the Board said precisely the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1217, pg. 4
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`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
`
`same thing.
` THE COURT: Okay.
` MR. HALL: "Because cross-examination has
`concluded, there is no prohibition on petitioner in that
`case conferring with Mr. Schechter."
` The last one that we found in the time
`period we had is Case IPR2014-116, which is Focal
`Therapeutics v. Senorx, Inc. And that case cited where
`the -- the Board again cited to Appendix D, as well as the
`Google case that we previously cited, saying that "Counsel
`is permitted to confer with the witness before redirect
`examination begins."
` So based on those case, we believe that it's
`permissible to confer with the witness before redirect
`begins.
` I believe Mr. Gardella has referred to cases
`where impermissible coaching is not allowed or the Board
`has stated that it would view impermissible coaching in a
`poor light. I'm not sure what he's going to say, but --
` So the question is, is what is the line
`between a permissible conference and impermissible
`coaching?
` One of the issues is, we as lawyers need a
`little help from an expert to understand some of the
`technical areas. So to what extent are we able to ask him
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1217, pg. 5
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 6
`questions about areas we might have been confused about?
`To what extent, if we believe that some of Petitioner's
`questions were misleading, are we permitted to discuss
`the -- you know, our thoughts with the witness on that?
` So that's kind of the question we're -- you
`know, one, are we even permitted to talk with him at all?
`Based on the cases, we think we are; and, you know, if so,
`where is the line on what's permissible and impermissible?
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
` Mr. Gardella, your response?
` MR. GARDELLA: So the cases that opposing
`counsel, Mr. Hall, cited are from 2014, and I acknowledge
`that the early cases, you know, did seem to indicate that
`these conversations were permissible. More recent case
`law, however, from the Board has said otherwise.
` I'll refer Your Honor to FLIR Systems v.
`Leak Surveys, IPR2014-411 and 434, Paper 12. Therein the
`following is noted:
` "There are inherent difficulties for an
`opponent to uncover the nature of any conversations during
`a recess. As a result, when recess conversations occur, a
`party runs the risk that the Board may find that there was
`witness coaching and may exclude or give little or no
`weight to the testimony of a coached witness."
` So further to this decision, which came out
`
`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. 1217, pg. 6
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 7
`in February, in this same case, when we, the petitioner,
`were offering our expert, Dr. Chase, for deposition, we
`abstained from any such recess or any conversation with
`the witness during the recess. And we're fundamentally
`looking for symmetry.
` My basic understanding is that there has
`been a shift in the view at the Board, and the rule
`pronounced in FLIR Systems is what we are seeing most
`recently from various panels, and I would submit that the
`FLIR Systems -- the rule set forth therein is the proper
`one.
` I'll note that it is consistent with
`district court proceedings. And, you know, the notion of
`attorneys talking to their witness and talking through
`issues in the middle of a cross-examination is -- I think
`it just -- it runs directly counter to the, you know,
`purpose of depositions and trying to get to the truth.
` I think the early decisions were essentially
`an anachronism from interference practice that created an
`artificial distinction between the -- you know, the end of
`cross and the start of redirect, for which there's really
`no substantive justification.
` So I would submit that the recent cases are
`controlling and do recite the correct rule and, perhaps
`most importantly, would give us symmetry in this case.
`
`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. 1217, pg. 7
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`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
`
` MR. HALL: If I may respond, Your Honor.
` THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Hall.
` MR. HALL: One thing I'll note, Mr. Gardella
`indicated that conference during cross-examination is
`improper, which is expressly set forth in the -- in
`Appendix D as improper. However, the cases that we cited
`specifically drew the distinction between consultation
`between the time period when cross-examination concludes
`and redirect begins, specifically because that is what is
`stated in the Trial Practice Guidelines.
` As far as symmetry is concerned, I don't
`think because Petitioner chose a certain course of action
`and chose not to raise this issue with the Board itself,
`that that should have any impact on the Board's decision
`today.
` THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you,
`gentlemen, for both of your presentations. I will go
`offline to discuss this with my panel, but I will be back
`on shortly.
` (The Panel confers.)
` THE COURT: Mr. Hall, Mr. Gardella, are you
`still on? This is Judge Jung.
` MR. GARDELLA: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor.
` THE COURT: I took up the matter with the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1217, pg. 8
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 9
`Panel, and the Panel has decided to allow the patent owner
`confer with their witness, although the Panel will provide
`the following warning: That patent owner should not use
`this time to coach the witness, and the Panel would also
`like to remind the parties that conferences with an expert
`witness are not privileged and are discoverable on
`recross.
` And, lastly, I would like to remind the
`parties that for issues like this, before they call the
`Board, they should try and arrange some kind of agreement
`amongst themselves, but in this case it looks like no
`agreement was able to be reached before calling this
`Panel.
` Other than that, are there any questions
`from either Mr. Gardella or Mr. Hall?
` MR. GARDELLA: None from Petitioner, Your
`Honor.
` MR. HALL: So just to -- this is Mr. Hall,
`Your Honor. To clarify, we're allowed to confer with our
`witness, should not do any coaching or improper coaching,
`but we should expect that any of our conversations are
`proper for Mr. Gardella to inquire into on recross?
` THE COURT: That's correct.
` MR. HALL: Okay. I think we understand,
`Your Honor.
`
`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. 1217, pg. 9
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 10
` MR. GARDELLA: And as long as we have Your
`Honor on the line, may we ask one additional question for
`follow-up which might preclude or prevent another call to
`the Board?
` THE COURT: All right.
` MR. GARDELLA: And that is simply, what is
`the Panel's position on propriety of re-redirect? The
`Rules do not provide for it. In this circumstance it
`sounds like we're going to have redirect and we'll
`probably have recross. Petitioner's position is that is
`not provided for this in the Rules and not permitted.
` Can you provide us some guidance on that
`issue?
` THE COURT: There is -- as the Panel sees
`it, there is no re-redirect.
` MR. GARDELLA: That's consistent with our
`understanding. I just wanted to confirm that because I
`thought this was an issue that might come up for Mr. Hall
`later today perhaps.
` MR. HALL: It's something we haven't
`prepared to discuss. We realize the Rules don't expressly
`address it, but we certainly did not know the propriety of
`doing so or impropriety of doing so before talking with
`the Panel.
` THE COURT: I see. The Panel feels that
`
`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. 1217, pg. 10
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 11
`there is not -- re-redirect is not provided in the Rules.
`And unless you provide some legal argument or legal
`reasoning that should -- that the Rules implicitly provide
`this re-redirect, we would not allow a re-redirect. Is
`that understood?
` MR. HALL: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. GARDELLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
` THE COURT: And whichever party arranged for
`the court reporter, please extract this portion concerning
`this telephone conference with the Panel and file it as an
`exhibit using their next available exhibit number.
` Which party provided the court reporter?
`Was that you, Mr. Hall, or --
` MR. HALL: I think it's technically
`Mr. Gardella, but it's the same court reporter for the
`deposition.
` MR. GARDELLA: Petitioner will upload the
`relevant portion of the transcript as an exhibit.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gardella.
` Are there any other issues or questions
`before I adjourn this telephone conference?
` MR. GARDELLA: Nothing from Petitioner, Your
`Honor.
` MR. HALL: Nothing from Patent Owner, Your
`Honor.
`
`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. 1217, pg. 11
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 12
`
` THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
`gentlemen. And this telephone conference is adjourned.
` MR. HALL: Thank you.
` MR. GARDELLA: Thank you.
` (TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CONCLUDED 11:35 A.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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1217, pg. 12
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`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
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 13
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, §
`NETAPP INC. AND HUAWEI §
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. §
` §
` Petitioners, § IPR2014-01197
` § IPR2014-01207
`VS. § IPR2014-01209
` §
` §
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, §
`INC. §
` §
` Patent Owner. §
`
` REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH THE PANEL
` JULY 16, 2015
`
` I, Tamara Chapman, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
`and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the
`following:
` That this teleconference transcript is a true record
` I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
`related to, nor employed by any of the parties in the
`action in which this proceeding was taken, and further
`that I am not financially or otherwise interested in the
`outcome of the action.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1217, pg. 13
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
` Certified to by me this 23rd day of July, 2015.
`
`Page 14
`
` _____________________________________
` Tamara Chapman, CSR, RPR
` CSR No. 7248
` Expiration Date: 12/31/16
` TSG Reporting, Inc.
` Firm Registration No. 615
` Nationwide - Worldwide
`
`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. 1217, pg. 14
`Oracle, et al. v. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket