Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ------------------------------------------X
` UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`
` PETITIONER(s),
`
` -against- CASE:
` IPR2014-01252
` DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
` PATENT OWNER(s).
` ------------------------------------------X
`
` DATE: November 26, 2014
` TIME: 2:00 p.m.
`
` TELEPHONIC conference of the
` parties, taken before LATONIA C. LEWIS,
` RPR, a Notary Public of the State of New
` York.
`
`Job No. 87776
`
`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
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 1
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ------------------------------------------X
` UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`
` PETITIONER(s),
`
` -against- CASE:
` IPR2014-01252
` DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
` PATENT OWNER(s).
` ------------------------------------------X
`
` DATE: November 26, 2014
` TIME: 2:00 p.m.
`
` TELEPHONIC conference of the
` parties, taken before LATONIA C. LEWIS,
` RPR, a Notary Public of the State of New
` York.
`
`Job No. 87776
`
`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
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 1
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` OBLON SPIVAK McCLELLAND MAIER &
` NEUSTADT
` Attorney for the Petitioner
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
` BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
`
` FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG
` Attorneys for the Patent Owner
` 350 Marine Parkway
` Redwood Shores, California 94065
` BY: JASON ANGELL, ESQ.
`
` * * *
`
`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
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 2
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` MR. KIKLIS: I would like to
` alert the Board, I sent an e-mail
` this morning that we have arranged
` for a court reporter who is already
` on the line to transcribe the phone
` call.
` THE COURT: We just ask that
` you file the transcript of the phone
` call as an exhibit then.
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, your Honor.
` Do I have permission to use one of
` the board's exhibit numbers or would
` you like us to use our own?
` THE COURT: You may use one of
` the boards.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you, your
` Honor.
` THE COURT: Do we have
` representative from the patent owner
` on the line?
` MR. ANGELL: Yes, your Honor.
` This is Jason Angell from Freitas,
` Angell & Weinberg for patent owner,
` Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 3
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` THE COURT: Well, as I
` understand it from the e-mail that
` were changed prior to the phone call,
` there are two issues that the parties
` want to discuss. One issue is
` petitioner's desire to file a reply
` to the preliminary response to deal
` with the issue of real party in
` interest, and the other issue is that
` the patent owner wants to seek leave
` to file an opposition to the motion
` to seal file by the petitioner.
` I'm going to start with the
` first of the two issues because I
` think it's probably a little bit more
` straightforward. And I think that
` that issue in particular is a good
` opportunity to remind the parties,
` again, that you really should try to
` workout as many of these procedural
` issues as you can beforehand. It's a
` bit of a burden on the Board and the
` rest of the parties to -- or stated
` another way, it is beneficial to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 4
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` everyone to the extent that we can
` workout procedural issues like, the
` motion to seal ahead of time. With
` that said, I would like to give the
` parties a chance to be heard on the
` matter. So I guess we'll start with
` the patent owner regarding the
` opposition. What are your concerns
` and why do you want to file the
` opposition?
` MR. ANGELL: On a motion to
` sale, your Honor, Mr. Kiklis has
` never expressed to me that there was
` any objection to us filing an
` opposition to their motion. We've
` told them from a very early point in
` the case that we did intend to oppose
` a motion to seal. The reason that we
` intended to oppose the motion to seal
` is two-fold.
` First of all, we don't think
` that the petitioner has presented a
` sufficient showing to establish that
` the information that they're trying
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 5
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` to seal is entitled to sealing. The
` issue of real party in interest is
` one of critical importance in this
` case. Given the nature of the
` petitioner, which is an entity that
` was setup and specifically designed
` to -- for the purpose of filing IPR's
` against NPE's on behalf of its
` members. So the fact that its
` claiming on the one hand to be the
` real party in interest and at the
` same time attempting to hide through
` sealing information how it's
` constituted and how it works we think
` is directly contrary to the public
` interest in the purpose of the Board
` in providing parties with whom
` invited the apple as far as
` litigating the validity issues.
` The second reason is that we
` believe that they have overdesignated
` information for sealing, even if
` there is a basis to seal some of the
` information, they've redacted entire
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 6
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` documents where the CEO of Unified
` Patents testified that most of it is
` not entitled to sealing and indeed
` they do not claim confidentiality
` over it. So those are the two
` primary reasons that we seek to
` oppose the motion.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, if I
` may respond?
` THE COURT: Certainly.
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, every time
` that we have responded to all
` requests by the patent owner in terms
` of overdesignation, if there is
` something specific, he should alert
` us before this call and we would be
` happy to address it. We have
` addressed, we have de-designated some
` documents based on request from the
` patent owner and we will continue to
` work with him.
` I think I need to start with
` the first issue that he had
` mentioned, is his attempt to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 7
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` basically out our membership, which
` in one of our first phone calls
` regarding additional discovery, I
` need to kind of start this whole
` discussion off, by we went to the
` patent owner because we have filed,
` Unified Patents have called a half
` dozen -- seven IPR's. And in some of
` those, IPR's, people have questioned
` real party in interest because there
` is some information out there in the
` public domain that is incorrect. And
` so we have -- with a clouding case,
` it was suggested to us by Judge
` Jameson Lee to provide some
` interrogatories, we provided that.
` The issue just simply went away. We
` haven't had a lot of issues regarding
` or of companies of patent owners
` raising this issue.
` Nevertheless, we reached out to
` them at the beginning saying hey,
` some people have raised this issue.
` If you'd like additional discovery,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 8
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` we would be happy to provide that to
` you. You don't have to bother the
` Board et cetera. The parties did
` reach an agreement and there was one
` issue in terms of cost of a
` deposition, which was raised in front
` of this Board. And we had a phone
` call, I would like to remind your
` Honors about that. There was a
` ruling about that in paper number
` eight. So kind of all behind this is
` this whole additional discovery,
` which we voluntarily provided.
` Well, at the very beginning,
` one of the representations that
` Mr. Angell said to me was that he
` found it within the public interest
` to reveal who our membership is, all
` the companies who consist of members.
` And that's what he's trying to do
` here. There are membership
` agreements in place between unified
` and its members where this
` information is confidential
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 9
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` information bound by the
` confidentiality provisions within
` these membership agreements. And
` this is held very closely to this
` company. It is very confidential
` information highly business sensitive
` information. Not only is it held in
` secrecy because of contractual
` reasons, but also for fear of
` retaliation from the NPE's who are
` out there.
` We have -- the members are very
` concerned as Unified is as well that
` if Jason Angell and his client are
` successful in outing the membership,
` then this would be -- this would
` subject the memberships to
` retaliation, retaliatory lawsuits and
` et cetera. So we have solid reasons
` on our side for keeping this
` confidential. And we, in addition,
` to that -- the public interest here
` is in the substance of the case
` itself, the patentability arguments
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 10
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` themselves. And so we don't feel
` that any of this information needs to
` be within the public record. It's
` our confidential information and we
` need to protect that.
` MR. ANGELL: Your Honor, if I
` may just briefly respond to that.
` THE COURT: Yeah, well,
` briefly. And I would note the --
` yeah, at this point, we're kind of
` getting a bit into the substance of
` whether we're going to seal this
` stuff. The issue at hand today
` really is the question of whether
` we're going to authorize the
` opposition to the motion to seal if,
` in fact, the parties cannot come to
` an agreement otherwise. So I think
` the main thing to keep in mind as you
` respond, Mr. Angell is try to keep it
` brief and let's keep it to the issue
` of whether we're going to have to
` deal with an opposition as opposed to
` the merits of whether certain
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 11
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` documents will be sealed.
` MR. ANGELL: Sure, your Honor.
` Just briefly on the procedural
` question whether we may file an
` opposition to the motion to seal.
` Taking on everything that Mr. Kiklis
` just said about the sealability of
` the information. The fact that
` private confidentiality agreements do
` not trump a public right of access to
` information. Mr. Kiklis says that
` the real issue in the case is the
` patentability of the events that's
` claimed in the Dragon Patents.
` That's true in part, but in order to
` get in the door, they need to
` establish they are the real party in
` interest and we believe that they are
` not.
` We believe that Mr. Jakel, the
` CEO's testimony establishes that they
` are not and keeping of the
` information from the public does not
` serve the public interest. There is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 12
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` -- we'd like the opportunity to take
` on, on a motion to seal level what
` Mr. Kiklis is saying about the
` sealability of the information
` because much of it is contrary to
` what the CEO testified about in his
` deposition about the confidentiality
` of the information. We'll present
` that in our opposition.
` THE COURT: Okay. One question
` that arises for us is the patent
` owner is, do you anticipate opposing
` the motion to deal with respect to
` everything that the patent petitioner
` has identified as something that
` should be sealed or are there
` particular documents, exhibits that
` you think should be public, and, if
` so, which?
` MR. ANGELL: I don't think we
` will oppose every single thing that
` they have sought to seal, but for
` example, the information that we
` think is important is how much the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 13
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` company has been paid by its members
` who are definitive in the district
` court litigation we think is in a
` public interest. It is directly
` relevant to the question of real
` party in interest. We don't have a
` desire contrary to the view that
` Mr. Kiklis described to me, which is
` incorrect. We do not have an
` interest in outing all of their
` members. But we do have an interest
` in addressing the real party in
` interest question. I would say no,
` is the answer to your question, your
` Honor, we do not intend to challenge
` every aspect of their sealing motion.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, if I
` may, I don't know which aspect they
` intend to challenge so --
` THE COURT: Okay.
` MR. KIKLIS: I'm left in the
` dark. I think that this is
` premature, your Honor.
` THE COURT: All right. Well, I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 14
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` think we're going to put you on hold
` here for a minute or so and I'm going
` to talk about it with my panel
` members.
` (Whereupon, an off-the-record
` discussion was held.)
` THE COURT: Okay. Gentleman,
` we've made a decision on this. It
` sounds like, first of all, again,
` that there may be some opportunity
` for you guys to discuss details and
` workout a protective order that is
` agreeable to both sides. We
` encourage you to do that. To the
` extent that those efforts do not bear
` fruit and you remain in disagreement
` about which things may or may not be
` sealed then we will authorize the
` filing of an opposition.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, if I
` may. This petitioner's counsel, Mike
` Kiklis. You raised the protective
` order. We did file -- the parties
` have agreed to a protective order.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 15
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` That was submitted with our motion to
` seal, so we would request that that
` is entered by the Board. And then, I
` do -- I would like to agree that I
` think, that if the patent owner
` presents us with a list of items that
` he would like to challenge, the
` designation, we would be happy to
` take that under advisement and
` respond and then that would reduce
` the amount of briefing that would be
` presented to this Board. So if there
` is specific items that he's
` interested in challenging the
` designation, let us know what they
` are and then we can put our position
` on the record as to whether we
` opposed or we will de-designate or
` whatever various items. And then
` that can resolve, at least narrow
` issues for the Board.
` MR. ANGELL: In general, your
` Honor, I think that sounds okay. I
` just want to clarify a couple of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 16
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` things. On the first thing
` Mr. Kiklis asked about, we don't
` object to the information being
` maintained under seal during the time
` that the discussion about this is
` pending. We don't object to that.
` I'm not sure if Mr. Kiklis was asking
` for anything more than that. So
` that's a point of clarification.
` MR. KIKLIS: I was actually,
` Jason, asking for entering of the
` protective order that we agreed to
` that was filed as an exhibit. That's
` all.
` MR. ANGELL: So not the
` designations, we can contest that --
` MR. KIKLIS: You can contest
` that if you'd like.
` THE COURT: Is that accurate,
` patent owner, that you agree to the
` protective order, but not the
` designations?
` MR. ANGELL: That's correct,
` your Honor. The second point
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 17
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` Mr. Kiklis raised, we are happy to
` work with him, but we think that as
` the party seeking to seal, they
` really need to show a basis for
` motion to seal or show a basis for
` sealing on everything. And the
` burden is kind of shifting to us, you
` know, to point out what isn't
` entitled to sealing, but we can work
` that out with Mr. Kiklis.
` THE COURT: I think it is a
` little more efficient if the two of
` you can find, like, say -- if the
` two of you can find common ground on
` this for these issues or any
` opposition that's filed, that will
` help us all out. Also, it warrants
` mention here that -- try not to talk
` over each other -- well, you're not
` really talking over each other. Try
` not to jump back and forth. I will
` ask when you want to talk.
` I think that resolves the issue
` with respect to the opposition. The
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 18
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` parties will discuss the matter and
` see if they can resolve anything with
` respect to any of the designations as
` to whether some may be agreeable and
` then to the extent that they are not,
` we authorize an opposition to the
` motion to seal. And digressing, we
` also will enter the protective order
` agreed to by the parties.
` MR. ANGELL: Thank you, your
` Honor.
` THE COURT: That takes us to --
` my colleague has pointed out that
` there have been due dates for the
` opposition, rules specify that any
` opposition should be filed a month
` from service of the motion. And if I
` remember correctly, you can guys can
` confirm this for me, November 15th, I
` believe, was the date of service for
` the opposition motion. Is that
` correct?
` MR. ANGELL: Our motion was
` filed on the 15th, your Honor, that's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 19
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` correct.
` THE COURT: Served as well.
` MR. ANGELL: Yes, your Honor.
` THE COURT: So then the due
` date for the opposition will be
` December 15th. And to digress again
` I think what we're going to do with
` respect to the protective order is we
` will have to look at that and make
` sure that it doesn't deviate too much
` from -- that we're comfortable with
` it vis-à-vis our standard protective
` order, so we will take that issue
` under advisement and issue an order.
` MR. KIKLIS: If I may just
` address the protective orders
` briefly, your Honor. The main
` departure, your Honor, is two levels
` of protection. So there is highly
` confidential, attorneys eyes only,
` which we negotiated with the other
` side, which is standard, as you know,
` in most district courts protective
` orders. The other change is really
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 20
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` directed to the situation where we
` have, in our case, where one party
` produces the confidential information
` and it is filed by the other party.
` It just seems that the default
` protective order really didn't cover
` those specific circumstances rather
` than the default protective order
` seems to contemplate the situation
` where a party files its own
` confidential information. As the
` Board reviews our protective order,
` which again has been agreed to by
` both sides, I will just like to give
` the Board that guidance that that's
` what we're attempting to do.
` THE COURT: Okay. That's
` helpful. So we will, as I mentioned,
` take it under advisement and issue an
` order on the issue. So that takes us
` to the other point that was raised,
` which were e-mails, which is the
` petitioner's desire to file a reply
` to the patent owner's preliminary
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 21
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` report from the real party in
` interest issue. I'm going to go
` ahead and let the petitioner start on
` this one as to why it feels it's
` necessary and then we'll give the
` patent owner a chance to speak.
` Petitioner you have the floor.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you, your
` Honor. Mike Kiklis, for the court
` reporter. As I said at the very
` beginning of this call, we provided
` this additional discovery and the
` patent owner took advantage of it and
` utilized it. They cited to and used
` the testimony of Mr. Jakel in their
` preliminary response, which is
` technically a violation of the rules
` in terms of no new testimonial
` evidence. They even filed their
` preliminary response late, it was
` after midnight on the following day.
` We are not going to object to any of
` that, your Honor, all we simply want
` is the chance to respond to their
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 22
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` argument regarding real party in
` interest. Our feeling is that first,
` we produced a lot of information to
` them. Mr. Jakel sat for over a
` seven-hour deposition and we served
` interrogatories. So the information
` was all there, the patent owner
` simply cherry-picked some
` information, didn't even provide the
` Board with interrogatory, which would
` contradict arguments that they had
` been made, so we would like the
` opportunity to show all of the
` information to the Board and to
` present our view of real party in
` interest. And this is a very
` important issue to our client. And
` this has come up in other cases, so
` we would like the opportunity to kind
` of lay this to rest particularly
` since the public domain has
` information out there that's just
` simply incorrect. There are some
` press reports that are out there that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 23
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` are wrong and we would just like to
` correct the record and have an
` opportunity to provide a fifteen-page
` response brief and have it due if at
` all possible a week from Friday given
` the holiday, your Honor.
` THE COURT: Patent owner, your
` thoughts on the matter.
` MR. ANGELL: Our starting part,
` your Honor, is that the roles do not
` provide for a preliminary response.
` Unified Patents was aware before they
` filed the case that real party in
` interest, was likely to be challenged
` in this case. They did call us up
` and they did offer some cover
` discovery initially. And the
` procedure was that we were to provide
` them with the discovery in which we
` were interested and they would
` respond to the discovery. I don't
` mean respond, give us everything that
` we ask for, but they would tell us
` what they thought about the discovery
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 24
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` that we requested.
` So we provided them with some
` discovery. And they said well, we're
` got going to give you that, but we're
` going to give you this. They very
` carefully controlled the information
` to which we had access. Importantly
` we were offered that if the discovery
` that they had agreed to give us,
` which was not everything that we
` asked for.
` If at that point, we wanted
` more that we could ask and they would
` consider the request. So after Mr.
` Jakel's deposition, we did, we asked
` for more discovery. We asked for
` documents that would show how the
` money traveled within Unified Patents
` from its members and how that money
` would spend. They refused that
` request and that information was
` directly germane to our challenge to
` their real party in interest status.
` We haven't made a big deal
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 25
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` about that at this point, but the
` idea that they've been entirely
` forthcoming about discovery is not at
` all correct. They did know that
` their status as real party in
` interest was going to be challenged.
` They had an opportunity to present
` evidence with their petition, they
` chose not to do it. We are not
` saying they were required to do it,
` but they did have the chance to do it
` and they didn't.
` So we think that there is no
` reason that the ordinary schedule
` should get adjusted to accommodate
` their strategic choice not to justify
` their status as real party in
` interest. And that's why we believe
` that the -- they should not be
` granted leave to file a response.
` Although if they do, we would like
` the chance to file a surreply.
` THE COURT: This raises the
` question for the petitioner or we
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 26
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` have a question for the petitioner.
` That is, whether the petitioner
` anticipates that it would file
` additional evidence with this reply.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, we
` would utilize only the evidence that
` we've served on the patent owner,
` which is the interrogatories which
` has not been made of record by
` Mr. Angell and any of the documents
` that we served on the other side
` within the confines of all the
` evidence that we produced, we would
` file our preliminary response.
` THE COURT: Okay.
` MR. KIKLIS: I'm sorry not our
` preliminary response, a reply brief.
` And I would note, your Honor, this
` has happened in other cases.
` THE COURT: What has happened?
` MR. KIKLIS: Reply briefs have
` been authorized on real party in
` interest in other cases.
` THE COURT: I wasn't aware of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 27
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` that. All right. Well, I think
` we've reached another moment where
` I'm going to put you guys on hold and
` talk to the panel about this.
` (Whereupon, an off-the-record
` discussion was held.)
` THE COURT: Okay. We've
` figured out what we're going to do
` with this. This is a complicated
` issue. Accordingly we are going to
` authorize a reply -- petitioner file
` a reply regarding -- limited to the
` real party in interest due by
` December 4th. I believe that's when
` the petitioner asked for.
` MR. KIKLIS: I think it's the
` 5th, your Honor, if I may.
` THE COURT: You're correct, it
` is the 5th. So due Friday, December
` 5th. We're going to go with ten
` pages on the limit. Submission of
` evidence is okay, but you should
` limit it to evidence that was
` available to the patent owner prior
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 28
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` to filing their preliminary response.
` For the time being, we are not going
` to authorize the reply to the
` petitioner's response here. So I
` think that covers it. Aside from
` those issues, does the petitioner
` have any other issues that it needs
` to cover at the moment?
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, first
` of all, I think you for the
` authorization to file the reply
` brief. We are very appreciative of
` that. I would like to offer and
` suggest that this is such an
` important issue that the Board may
` consider holding a hearing and we
` would be available the following week
` for a live hearing in Alexandria,
` Virginia. In fact, we would make
` Mr. Jakel the CEO of Unified Patents
` available as a live witness. I can
` direct him, Mr. Angell can cross
` examine him and the Board can ask
` whatever questions of Mr. Jakel they
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 29
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` would like.
` Like I said, this is a very
` important issue to the company and we
` would like to just simply put this to
` rest and correct the public record
` out there, which is incorrect. The
` only thing that highly confidential
` information could be discussed or
` asked by the Board, we might have to
` have some confidential -- the room
` sealed, for example, or something
` like that to protect the
` confidentiality of the information
` discussed. So the petitioner would
` like to offer that and suggest that
` to the Board.
` THE COURT: Well, briefly, any
` thoughts on that from the patent
` owner?
` MR. ANGELL: Your Honor, we
` would welcome the opportunity to do
` that. We're not available the
` following week, but we could probably
` work it out the week after that, I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 30
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` will have to double check my
` schedule. I hadn't been aware that
` this offer was coming.
` THE COURT: But generally
` speaking --
` MR. ANGELL: Generally
` speaking, we do not object.
` THE COURT: At this juncture,
` in sum, we are not inclined to go
` that avenue yet. We appreciate the
` offer and the cooperation on the
` matter. Well, let's leave it as we
` will take it under advisement and get
` a decision on that matter in paper.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, just
` to the extent that the Board is
` considering scheduling it. Mr. Jakel
` is out of the country the week of the
` 15th and I am in another trial just
` so the Board knew that in advance.
` THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough.
` MR. ANGELL: Your Honor, if I
` may just address the scheduling
` issue, I may be able to help. May I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 31
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` address it?
` THE COURT: Sure. Just very
` briefly. I think generally speaking,
` we're going to take the issue under
` advisement so probably before we get
` too far down the road on it.
` Actually, in fact, I think -- I
` think at this juncture, there is no
` issue to address the scheduling
` issue.
` MR. ANGELL: Okay.
` THE COURT: We'll take the
` matter under advisement besides
` whether we think it is appropriate
` for us to have such a hearing and we
` will iron out any scheduling issues
` if we decide that helps.
` MR. ANGELL: Sure. No problem.
` I did have just one question. This
` is Jason Angell again. I can ask it
` at an appropriate time, your
` preference.
` THE COURT: Sure, go ahead and
` ask the question.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide
`(877) 702-9580
`
`Unified v. Dragon Ex. 3001, pg. 32
`IPR2014-01252
`
`
`
`Page 33
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` MR. ANGELL: The question had
` to do with the surreply request that
` we made. The question is simply, do
` I understand correctly, that you're
` saying at this point, no surreply,
` but we may request a surreply later
` certainly if additional evidence is
` going to be submitted we think that
` would be important, we don't need to
` -- we understand your order at this
` point, your Honor, I just want to
` make sure that, we may ask later if
` we foresee the need or that it would
` be helpful, for the record, for us to
` do so that we may, in fact, request
` to file a surreply.
` THE COURT: I'm glad you asked
` the question, clarification on that
` issue is appropriate. The answer is,
` I don't think we're going to answer
` that definitively on the phone
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
