In The Matter Of:
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - Vol. 1
`July 30, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures Exhibit 2005
`IBM v. Intellectual Ventures
`IPR2014-01410
`
`
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - Vol. 1
`July 30, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures Exhibit 2005
`IBM v. Intellectual Ventures
`IPR2014-01410
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`Page 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------------x
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` Case No. IPR2014-00660
` -against-
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------------x
`
` JULY 30, 2014
`
` 3:00 p.m.
`
`Telephonic Conference Call, reported by
`
`Mark Richman, CSR, CCR, RPR.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE:
`
`JENNIFER BISK
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`Attorneys for the Petitioner
` 300 North LaSalle Street
` Chicago, Illionos 60654
`
`BY: KENNETH R. ADAMO, ESQ.
` EUGENE GORYUNOV, ESQ.
` (kenneth.adamo@kirkland.com)
` (eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com)
` -and-
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
` 3330 Hillview Avenue
` Palo Alto, California 94304
`
`BY: ALICIA SHAH, ESQ.
` (alicia.shah@kirkland.com)
`
`KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR
`Attorneys for Patent Holder
` 2040 Main Street, 14th Fl.
` Irvine, California, 92014
`
`BY: BRENTON R. BABCOCK, ESQ.
` SCOTT RAEVSKY, ESQ.
` (brent.babcock@knobbe.com)
` (scott.raevsky@knobbe.com)
`
`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
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` JUDGE BISK: Good afternoon.
`
` This is Judge Jennifer Bisk, I have
`
` the board on the line with me. Can
`
` I have a roll call of who is
`
` present.
`
` MR. ADAMO: Yes, your Honor,
`
` this is Ken Adamo from Kirkland and
`
` Ellis. I'm lead counsel. My
`
` partner, Ms. Alicia Shah and one of
`
` our other colleagues Eugene
`
` Goryunov are also on the line this
`
` afternoon.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Thank you. And
`
` for patent owner.
`
` MR. BABCOCK: Good afternoon,
`
` your Honor, Brent Babcock for the
`
` patent owner, and with me is my
`
` colleague, attorney Scott Raevsky,
`
` spelled R-A-E-V-S-K-Y.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Thank you. This
`
` is a call for IPR-2014-00660 and I
`
` believe petitioner requested the
`
` conference, so why don't you go
`
` ahead, petitioner, and let us know
`
`14:56:08
`
`14:56:08
`
`15:01:13
`
`15:01:14
`
`15:01:16
`
`15:01:20
`
`15:01:23
`
`15:01:25
`
`15:01:26
`
`15:01:27
`
`15:01:29
`
`15:01:31
`
`15:01:33
`
`15:01:36
`
`15:01:39
`
`15:01:43
`
`15:01:46
`
`15:01:52
`
`15:01:54
`
`15:01:56
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` what you're asking.
`
` We just request that when you
`
` get the transcript you upload it as
`
` an exhibit and it can be in the
`
` 3,000's so that it doesn't take
`
` away any of your slots.
`
` MR. ADAMO: Yes, your Honor,
`
` we will do that. Ms. Shah will be
`
` presenting for petitioner this
`
` afternoon, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Ms. Shah, any
`
` time you're ready.
`
` MS. SHAH: The patent holder's
`
` preliminary response pointed out an
`
` inadvertent mistake in our
`
` petition. I know that 42.104 B
`
` doesn't require claim charts but we
`
` included them and missed a
`
` limitation for one of the grounds
`
` in one of the claims in our claim
`
` chart. And if you have the
`
` petition in front of you, it's
`
` claim 30, element A.A 1 on page 20
`
` of the petition. You'll see the
`
`15:01:59
`
`15:02:21
`
`15:02:23
`
`15:02:26
`
`15:02:29
`
`15:02:31
`
`15:02:36
`
`15:02:37
`
`15:02:39
`
`15:02:40
`
`15:02:42
`
`15:02:43
`
`15:02:44
`
`15:02:46
`
`15:02:49
`
`15:02:51
`
`15:02:54
`
`15:02:58
`
`15:03:00
`
`15:03:01
`
`15:03:03
`
`15:03:04
`
`15:03:08
`
`15:03:12
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` petition skipped from element A to
`
` A 2 directly and it's missing from
`
` the chart.
`
` We request a motion to correct
`
` that and we would like to argue
`
` first that it was inadvertent which
`
` is one of the requirements under
`
` 42.104 C. Also, we believe that
`
` this correction will not prejudice
`
` the patent holder. It doesn't
`
` involve adding any new material to
`
` the petition.
`
` And to explain that, element
`
` 18.b, which is on page 11 of the
`
` petition, talks about the idea of
`
` certifying a data structure and a
`
` certificate signature reply.
`
` And this element is the same
`
` process that's described in 31,
`
` element 30.a.a1, and to make that
`
` clear, the petition actually makes
`
` that clear.
`
` Please let me know if I'm
`
` going too fast.
`
`15:03:15
`
`15:03:17
`
`15:03:20
`
`15:03:22
`
`15:03:24
`
`15:03:27
`
`15:03:29
`
`15:03:31
`
`15:03:34
`
`15:03:36
`
`15:03:38
`
`15:03:40
`
`15:03:42
`
`15:03:45
`
`15:03:49
`
`15:03:54
`
`15:03:58
`
`15:04:02
`
`15:04:03
`
`15:04:08
`
`15:04:11
`
`15:04:13
`
`15:04:16
`
`15:04:17
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` JUDGE BISK: All right. No, I
`
` don't think so. But let's hear
`
` from patent owner. I assume you
`
` oppose this?
`
` MR. BABCOCK: Yes, your Honor,
`
` this is Brent Babcock. As a
`
` preface, we don't normally oppose
`
` every type of correction that's
`
` requested. In fact, in this case
`
` there was a typographical or
`
` clerical error in the original
`
` petition in which the petitioner
`
` had misidentified a reference. And
`
` we looked at it and believe that it
`
` was clear on its face that it
`
` complied with, with the rules as a
`
` clerical or typographical error and
`
` so we did not oppose that
`
` particular request so a corrected
`
` petition was filed.
`
` But in this particular case we
`
` did take some time to look at it
`
` and it's in our view, while it may
`
` be inadvertent, we have no basis to
`
`15:04:18
`
`15:04:19
`
`15:04:20
`
`15:04:23
`
`15:04:24
`
`15:04:25
`
`15:04:27
`
`15:04:31
`
`15:04:33
`
`15:04:35
`
`15:04:37
`
`15:04:39
`
`15:04:42
`
`15:04:44
`
`15:04:47
`
`15:04:49
`
`15:04:54
`
`15:04:56
`
`15:04:57
`
`15:05:01
`
`15:05:02
`
`15:05:03
`
`15:05:05
`
`15:05:08
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` know, it's certainly not in our
`
` view a clerical or typographical
`
` error.
`
` The petition as Ms. Shah
`
` points out on page 20 is entirely
`
` missing an element. But if you go
`
` to pages 38 and page 56 of the
`
` petition where the same claim is
`
` addressed with respect to other
`
` prior art references, 30.a.a1 is
`
` explicitly addressed. And so there
`
` are two claim charts in which the
`
` petitioner had no problem with
`
` respect to the PKI prior art
`
` reference and also the RFC 1424
`
` reference. The petitioner
`
` identified that and explained the
`
` relevance with respect to those
`
` references.
`
` So the petition itself it
`
` appears to us to be missing and
`
` it's a substantive error; it's not
`
` a procedural or typographical
`
` error.
`
`15:05:10
`
`15:05:12
`
`15:05:18
`
`15:05:18
`
`15:05:20
`
`15:05:22
`
`15:05:24
`
`15:05:27
`
`15:05:29
`
`15:05:31
`
`15:05:36
`
`15:05:39
`
`15:05:42
`
`15:05:44
`
`15:05:45
`
`15:05:49
`
`15:05:51
`
`15:05:52
`
`15:05:54
`
`15:05:54
`
`15:05:56
`
`15:05:58
`
`15:06:01
`
`15:06:04
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` We also went to look at the
`
` Blaze declaration in which there
`
` aren't, there aren't claim charts
`
` per se but Dr. Blaze does address
`
` all the limitations in separate
`
` paragraphs.
`
` And on -- in his declaration
`
` on page 25 he addresses claim 30.
`
` He identifies in the claim
`
` recitation this particular
`
` limitation. But then when he goes
`
` through and goes through his
`
` analysis of the claims, if you look
`
` at pages 75 to 77, he completely
`
` omits any discussion of this
`
` particular limitation in his
`
` recitation.
`
` But then with respect to the
`
` other two prior art references, the
`
` PKI report on pages 136 to 139, he
`
` does address that limitation and
`
` with respect to the RFC 1424 report
`
` again he addresses that limitation.
`
` So it may be an omission, it
`
`15:06:04
`
`15:06:07
`
`15:06:08
`
`15:06:11
`
`15:06:14
`
`15:06:16
`
`15:06:17
`
`15:06:19
`
`15:06:22
`
`15:06:24
`
`15:06:25
`
`15:06:28
`
`15:06:29
`
`15:06:34
`
`15:06:39
`
`15:06:40
`
`15:06:42
`
`15:06:43
`
`15:06:45
`
`15:06:47
`
`15:06:51
`
`15:06:52
`
`15:06:57
`
`15:06:59
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` may be inadvertent; it's not
`
` clerical or typographical. And it
`
` is not the same as the limitation
`
` set forth in claim 18.b. this
`
` limitation begins with the word
`
` receiving. That word is nowhere in
`
` claim 18.b in that limitation. In
`
` fact, what is sent or what is
`
` transferred may or may not be what
`
` is being received.
`
` It's not incumbent upon the
`
` patent owner in this particular
`
` case to try to figure out what the
`
` arguments are or arguments that
`
` should have been made in the
`
` petition and try to search
`
` throughout the petition to see what
`
` we could put in place of what the
`
` argument should have been.
`
` If there was an identical
`
` limitation maybe that's something
`
` that we would say, well, we
`
` understand what you meant. Here,
`
` we had no way of knowing what was
`
`15:07:02
`
`15:07:04
`
`15:07:07
`
`15:07:09
`
`15:07:12
`
`15:07:14
`
`15:07:17
`
`15:07:20
`
`15:07:22
`
`15:07:24
`
`15:07:25
`
`15:07:30
`
`15:07:32
`
`15:07:33
`
`15:07:38
`
`15:07:39
`
`15:07:40
`
`15:07:41
`
`15:07:43
`
`15:07:45
`
`15:07:48
`
`15:07:50
`
`15:07:51
`
`15:07:53
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` intended. It looks like an
`
` oversight. But again, it's
`
` completely missing.
`
` So in our view, your Honor,
`
` this does not satisfy the
`
` requirements for an inadvertent or
`
` clerical -- excuse me, a clerical
`
` or typographical mistake.
`
` Inadvertent is not in the rule.
`
` And in that case our request,
`
` your Honor, is deny the request to
`
` correct the petition and let the
`
` petition proceed as it was filed as
`
` already corrected.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Okay. Ms. Shah,
`
` do you want to reply?
`
` MS. SHAH: I do. I'll speak
`
` first to the omission in the Blaze
`
` declaration and the claim chart.
`
` I think it's prudent the way
`
` we created our petition, which is
`
` we first talked to our expert and
`
` worked on hammering out whether the
`
` prior art shows the claim elements,
`
`15:07:55
`
`15:07:58
`
`15:08:00
`
`15:08:01
`
`15:08:03
`
`15:08:05
`
`15:08:07
`
`15:08:09
`
`15:08:11
`
`15:08:13
`
`15:08:16
`
`15:08:20
`
`15:08:21
`
`15:08:25
`
`15:08:27
`
`15:08:30
`
`15:08:32
`
`15:08:33
`
`15:08:36
`
`15:08:38
`
`15:08:40
`
`15:08:42
`
`15:08:45
`
`15:08:48
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` and then we took that information
`
` and put it into the petition. So
`
` when the element was missing in the
`
` declaration, which I can't entirely
`
` be sure but I think may be due to
`
` document corruption, these things
`
` get long and they have pictures,
`
` but when it was missing from there
`
` and got transferred into the claim
`
` chart, I think that's how the error
`
` carried over. It's absolutely a
`
` typographical clerical-type error
`
` even though it's missing in both.
`
` And I do want to speak to the
`
` substance because I believe the
`
` patent owner is wrong. Claim 31
`
` talks about a method of -- 30, I
`
` apologize, talks about a method of
`
` updating certificates. And if you
`
` look at page 9 of the petition, we
`
` speak to what claim 30 does with
`
` reference to the other claims. It
`
` says relative to claim 30, which is
`
` the prior art reference, discloses
`
`15:08:49
`
`15:08:50
`
`15:08:52
`
`15:08:54
`
`15:08:56
`
`15:08:58
`
`15:09:00
`
`15:09:03
`
`15:09:05
`
`15:09:07
`
`15:09:08
`
`15:09:10
`
`15:09:13
`
`15:09:14
`
`15:09:17
`
`15:09:19
`
`15:09:25
`
`15:09:27
`
`15:09:29
`
`15:09:32
`
`15:09:35
`
`15:09:37
`
`15:09:39
`
`15:09:43
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` the claim method of updating a
`
` certificate.
`
` So Kapidzic teaches that when
`
` a new key pair is generated by some
`
` CA, certificate authority, the same
`
` procedure is followed as the
`
` original certification as recited
`
` in claim 30.
`
` So what we say here for claim
`
` 30 follow the same procedure as the
`
` original certification.
`
` The original certification --
`
` JUDGE BISK: Can I interrupt
`
` you for a second. I just want to
`
` say if I'm recalling it correctly,
`
` you're saying that in the text of
`
` the petition you discuss this
`
` limitation for claim 30 and it's
`
` missing in the claim chart? Or are
`
` you still talking about 18.b?
`
` MS. SHAH: No, I do want to be
`
` accurate. We talk about claim 30
`
` generally in the petition. What we
`
` say is that when you're updating a
`
`15:09:45
`
`15:09:46
`
`15:09:49
`
`15:09:50
`
`15:09:53
`
`15:09:55
`
`15:09:56
`
`15:10:00
`
`15:10:00
`
`15:10:03
`
`15:10:04
`
`15:10:06
`
`15:10:08
`
`15:10:10
`
`15:10:12
`
`15:10:15
`
`15:10:16
`
`15:10:17
`
`15:10:21
`
`15:10:24
`
`15:10:26
`
`15:10:28
`
`15:10:30
`
`15:10:33
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` certificate, follow the same
`
` procedure as you followed in the
`
` original certification. And claim
`
` 18 is that original certification.
`
` And if you look at the text of the
`
` petition on claim 8, it says
`
` relative to claim 18, it discloses
`
` the method of requesting and
`
` issuing the certificate.
`
` So that's the original
`
` certification, is claim 18. You're
`
` using the same method. And patent
`
` holder is right that claim 18 talks
`
` about sending a certificate and
`
` claim 31 talks about receiving the
`
` same signed certificate. But I
`
` think it's obvious that when a
`
` certificate gets sent, it also gets
`
` received. And in fact the text
`
` that we would seek to add is the
`
` text in the claim 18 box on page 11
`
` of the petition. In fact, if you
`
` look at the other two claim charts,
`
` the other grounds, the quote in the
`
`15:10:34
`
`15:10:35
`
`15:10:37
`
`15:10:40
`
`15:10:43
`
`15:10:45
`
`15:10:48
`
`15:10:51
`
`15:10:53
`
`15:10:55
`
`15:10:57
`
`15:10:59
`
`15:11:04
`
`15:11:06
`
`15:11:09
`
`15:11:12
`
`15:11:16
`
`15:11:17
`
`15:11:20
`
`15:11:22
`
`15:11:24
`
`15:11:30
`
`15:11:32
`
`15:11:34
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` claim 18 box are mirrored in the
`
` claim 31 box because it's the same
`
` transaction, one from the sender
`
` and one from the receiver.
`
` And so those quotes are
`
` carried over.
`
` We would do the same thing
`
` with our motion to correct.
`
` I also want to speak to the
`
` prejudice point. The patent
`
` holder, I know that prejudice to
`
` the patent holder is something that
`
` the board considers when it is
`
` considering a motion to correct and
`
` here patent holder shouldn't be
`
` prejudiced because they elected not
`
` to comment on the substance of
`
` petitioner's alleged ground for
`
` rejection. Footnote 1 of the
`
` patent owner's response is explicit
`
` that they elected not to comment on
`
` the substance. So there should be
`
` no, no prejudice to them.
`
` We're not adding any new
`
`15:11:37
`
`15:11:40
`
`15:11:43
`
`15:11:44
`
`15:11:46
`
`15:11:47
`
`15:11:48
`
`15:11:50
`
`15:11:52
`
`15:11:54
`
`15:11:58
`
`15:12:00
`
`15:12:04
`
`15:12:05
`
`15:12:06
`
`15:12:08
`
`15:12:10
`
`15:12:12
`
`15:12:14
`
`15:12:16
`
`15:12:19
`
`15:12:21
`
`15:12:22
`
`15:12:24
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` quote. We're not adding any new
`
` references. We're not going to add
`
` exhibits. And we didn't use all of
`
` our pages in our original petition,
`
` so we also won't be going over the
`
` page limit in any way. To just
`
` copy this material from claim 18 so
`
` it's obvious in claim 31, I think
`
` it is already obvious in the
`
` petition. But it would be nice if
`
` the claim chart spelled it out
`
` explicitly so you're not going from
`
` claim chart element 31 and then
`
` you're looking at the text and
`
` saying oh, 31 does the same thing
`
` as 18 and then looking at 18.
`
` I think it's obvious in the
`
` petition, but we would move to
`
` correct just to make it absolutely
`
` clear.
`
` MR. BABCOCK: Your Honor, just
`
` quickly.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Is this Mr.
`
` Babcock?
`
`15:12:26
`
`15:12:29
`
`15:12:31
`
`15:12:33
`
`15:12:36
`
`15:12:38
`
`15:12:41
`
`15:12:43
`
`15:12:46
`
`15:12:47
`
`15:12:49
`
`15:12:51
`
`15:12:53
`
`15:12:56
`
`15:12:57
`
`15:12:59
`
`15:13:02
`
`15:13:03
`
`15:13:04
`
`15:13:07
`
`15:13:10
`
`15:13:11
`
`15:13:14
`
`15:13:15
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` MR. BABCOCK: Yes, your Honor.
`
` Just quickly on three points that
`
` Ms. Shah raised.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Yes.
`
` MR. BABCOCK: I think her
`
` discussion highlights the fact that
`
` it is substantive. The claim
`
` language is clearly different. The
`
` returning language versus
`
` receiving. If I return something
`
` it doesn't mean that you receive
`
` it. The address could be
`
` different. So it requires some
`
` substantive analysis by the board
`
` to figure out what could have been
`
` meant and requires some analysis by
`
` us which we're not prepared to do
`
` for the petitioner. So I think that
`
` demonstrates it's not clerical or
`
` typographical.
`
` Secondly, with regards to
`
` prejudice, we did argue, your
`
` Honor, that this claim ought to
`
` be -- that the trial not be
`
`15:13:15
`
`15:13:16
`
`15:13:19
`
`15:13:20
`
`15:13:22
`
`15:13:23
`
`15:13:25
`
`15:13:26
`
`15:13:28
`
`15:13:30
`
`15:13:32
`
`15:13:33
`
`15:13:35
`
`15:13:37
`
`15:13:39
`
`15:13:42
`
`15:13:44
`
`15:13:46
`
`15:13:48
`
`15:13:50
`
`15:13:51
`
`15:13:53
`
`15:13:55
`
`15:14:00
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` instituted on this claim based on
`
` the fact they didn't address every
`
` limitation in the claim.
`
` So I think that's a legitimate
`
` basis for the board to deny
`
` institution on claim 30 based upon
`
` the fact that the petitioners have
`
` not met its burden of proof going
`
` element by element showing that
`
` every element is satisfied by the
`
` prior art. If there's a missing
`
` element you fail to meet your
`
` burden.
`
` And lastly I do think with
`
` regard to the pages, I think the
`
` corrected petition was that page,
`
` at page 60, so I think they are
`
` after the limit. Maybe they can
`
` squeeze another couple of lines in,
`
` but they are pretty much at their
`
` limit.
`
` So again we would suggest that
`
` this is one of the situations where
`
` maybe it's unfortunate and we do
`
`15:14:04
`
`15:14:06
`
`15:14:07
`
`15:14:08
`
`15:14:09
`
`15:14:13
`
`15:14:15
`
`15:14:18
`
`15:14:19
`
`15:14:21
`
`15:14:22
`
`15:14:25
`
`15:14:26
`
`15:14:26
`
`15:14:38
`
`15:14:40
`
`15:14:43
`
`15:14:46
`
`15:14:48
`
`15:14:50
`
`15:14:51
`
`15:14:52
`
`15:14:54
`
`15:14:55
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` personally have sympathy for
`
` counsel who may have made mistakes.
`
` But we represent a client and we're
`
` not prepared to suggest the board
`
` should violate its rules in order
`
` to help correct mistakes.
`
` We're also concerned about the
`
` kind of precedent this would set
`
` where petitioners make mistakes in
`
` their petition, substantive
`
` mistakes, where they miss this
`
` thing, where they forget to cite
`
` things and make substantive errors.
`
` We pointed out in our patent
`
` holders preliminary response, our
`
` POPR, and then the petitioner goes,
`
` oops, I made a mistake, I forgot to
`
` cite a reference, I left out this
`
` element, I didn't do something I
`
` should have done, it's inadvertent,
`
` my bad, can I fix it. And the
`
` court says sure, go ahead. And
`
` then we're in a situation where
`
` we've already filed our POPR.
`
`15:14:58
`
`15:14:59
`
`15:15:01
`
`15:15:04
`
`15:15:11
`
`15:15:12
`
`15:15:14
`
`15:15:16
`
`15:15:22
`
`15:15:25
`
`15:15:25
`
`15:15:26
`
`15:15:27
`
`15:15:29
`
`15:15:31
`
`15:15:33
`
`15:15:36
`
`15:15:38
`
`15:15:39
`
`15:15:41
`
`15:15:43
`
`15:15:45
`
`15:15:47
`
`15:15:49
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` Does the board give a new
`
` date? It just messes things up I
`
` think incredibly to allow the
`
` petitioners the ability to fix
`
` mistakes pointed out in the POPR if
`
` they are not merely typographical
`
` or clerical.
`
` MS. SHAH: Your Honor, if I
`
` may, earlier I said claim 31 and I
`
` meant 30, if I wasn't clear.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Okay. I think I
`
` got that. I'm going to put
`
` everyone on mute for a minute while
`
` I discuss this with the panel.
`
` I'll be back shortly.
`
` (Pause in the call.)
`
` JUDGE BISK: Okay, I'm back.
`
` This is judge Bisk. We have all of
`
` the counsel that we need for
`
` petitioner?
`
` MS. SHAH: Kirkland, counsel
`
` for the petitioner is present.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Okay. And patent
`
` owner, are you still there?
`
`15:15:51
`
`15:15:53
`
`15:15:57
`
`15:15:59
`
`15:16:00
`
`15:16:03
`
`15:16:05
`
`15:16:06
`
`15:16:08
`
`15:16:10
`
`15:16:13
`
`15:16:18
`
`15:16:20
`
`15:16:21
`
`15:16:22
`
`15:19:35
`
`15:19:35
`
`15:19:36
`
`15:19:40
`
`15:19:42
`
`15:19:44
`
`15:19:45
`
`15:19:46
`
`15:19:47
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` MR. BABCOCK: Yes, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Okay, great. So
`
` the panel has discussed and we have
`
` decided not to authorize a motion
`
` to correct the petition for a few
`
` reasons, one of which is that the
`
` patent owner has already filed
`
` their preliminary response and
`
` there's not a lot of time left and
`
` we feel that if we did allow such a
`
` correction, the patent owner would
`
` have to be able to respond.
`
` And that brings us to the
`
` second point which is I believe
`
` this sounds fairly substantive. We
`
` found before that the failure to
`
` point out where each element was
`
` found in prior art is a deficiency
`
` in the substantive requirements in
`
` the petition. And I think if it's
`
` in there somewhere else then it's
`
` not a problem that needs to be
`
` necessarily corrected. So it's
`
` either substantive or not
`
`15:19:49
`
`15:19:50
`
`15:19:52
`
`15:19:54
`
`15:19:57
`
`15:19:59
`
`15:20:03
`
`15:20:04
`
`15:20:06
`
`15:20:09
`
`15:20:11
`
`15:20:13
`
`15:20:16
`
`15:20:17
`
`15:20:21
`
`15:20:24
`
`15:20:26
`
`15:20:27
`
`15:20:31
`
`15:20:32
`
`15:20:36
`
`15:20:38
`
`15:20:39
`
`15:20:42
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` necessary.
`
` And the third reason is that I
`
` believe in this case we've already
`
` had two corrected petitions. So it
`
` seems there have been plenty of
`
` chances to fix the problems in the
`
` petition. We just think a third
`
` time is too many.
`
` MS. SHAH: Your Honor, if I
`
` may.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Yes, go ahead.
`
` MS. SHAH: I would hope the
`
` board would nevertheless consider
`
` the petition in its entirety. The
`
` rules don't actually require claim
`
` charts.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Of course.
`
` MS. SHAH: There's no doubt
`
` that element 18.b -- the element
`
` that's missing just says signing a
`
` certificate and sending it back and
`
` the quotes in element 18.b say
`
` exactly the signing of a
`
` certificate --
`
`15:20:43
`
`15:20:46
`
`15:20:50
`
`15:20:51
`
`15:20:55
`
`15:20:57
`
`15:20:59
`
`15:21:02
`
`15:21:08
`
`15:21:09
`
`15:21:09
`
`15:21:10
`
`15:21:12
`
`15:21:15
`
`15:21:16
`
`15:21:18
`
`15:21:18
`
`15:21:19
`
`15:21:20
`
`15:21:23
`
`15:21:26
`
`15:21:28
`
`15:21:31
`
`15:21:33
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`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
`
` JUDGE BISK: I'm sorry, I'd
`
` rather not hear any more arguments
`
` on the merits. We will look at the
`
` petition as a whole and decide it
`
` whether, you know, everything has
`
` been met based on what's in the
`
` petition.
`
` Unless there's any other
`
` issues, I think we can adjourn.
`
` MR. ADAMO: For petitioner
`
` none, your Honor, except I would
`
` note that we will be guided by this
`
` set of circumstances with respect
`
` to IPR to try to change any system
`
` errors we may be having here to
`
` make sure that I don't have to
`
` bother with you a phone call like
`
` this again.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Okay.
`
` MR. BABCOCK: And no other
`
` issues for the patent owner, your
`
` Honor. We appreciate your time.
`
` JUDGE BISK: Thanks, everyone,
`
` we're adjourned.
`
`15:21:33
`
`15:21:35
`
`15:21:36
`
`15:21:38
`
`15:21:41
`
`15:21:43
`
`15:21:45
`
`15:21:46
`
`15:21:48
`
`15:21:56
`
`15:21:57
`
`15:21:59
`
`15:22:02
`
`15:22:05
`
`15:22:09
`
`15:22:10
`
`15:22:12
`
`15:22:14
`
`15:22:15
`
`15:22:18
`
`15:22:19
`
`15:22:22
`
`15:22:23
`
`15:22:24
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`Page 23
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` (Time noted: 3:22 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
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`Page 24
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK )
`
` : ss.
`
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
`
` I, MARK RICHMAN, a Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter, Certified Realtime
`
`Reporter and Notary Public within and for
`
`the State of New York, do hereby certify:
`
` That I am not related to any
`
`of the parties to this action by blood or
`
`marriage, and that I am in no way
`
`interested in the outcome of this matter.
`
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
`
`hereunto set my hand this ____ day of
`
`___________, 2014.
`
`__________________________
`
`MARK RICHMAN, C.S.R., C.C.R., RPR
`
`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
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`Page 1
`
`12:6
`California
`2:8,12
`call
`1:13 3:5,22 19:17
`22:18
`carried
`11:12 14:7
`case
`1:5 6:10,22 9:14 10:11
`21:4
`CCR
`1:14
`certainly
`7:2
`certificate
`5:18 12:3,6 13:2,10,15
`13:17,19 21:22,25
`certificates
`11:20
`certification
`12:8,12,13 13:4,5,12
`Certified
`24:7,8
`certify
`24:10
`certifying
`5:17
`chances
`21:7
`change
`22:15
`chart
`4:22 5:4 10:20 11:11
`12:20 15:12,14
`charts
`4:18 7:13 8:4 13:24
`21:17
`Chicago
`2:3
`circumstances
`22:14
`cite
`18:13,19
`claim
`
`based
`17:2,7 22:7
`basis
`6:25 17:6
`BEAR
`2:11
`begins
`9:6
`believe
`3:23 5:9 6:15 11:16
`20:15 21:4
`Bisk
`1:19 3:2,3,14,21 4:12
`6:2 10:16 12:14
`15:24 16:5 19:12,18
`19:19,24 20:3 21:12
`21:18 22:2,20,24
`Blaze
`8:3,5 10:19
`blood
`24:12
`board
`1:2 3:4 14:14 16:15
`17:6 18:5 19:2 21:14
`bother
`22:18
`box
`13:22 14:2,3
`Brent
`3:17 6:7
`BRENTON
`2:13
`brent.babcock@kn...
`2:14
`brings
`20:14
`burden
`17:9,14
`BUSINESS
`1:3
`
`C
`
`C 2
`
`:1 5:9 24:2,2
`CA
`
`apologize
`11:19
`APPEAL
`1:2
`appears
`7:22
`appreciate
`22:23
`argue
`5:6 16:23
`argument
`9:20
`arguments
`9:15,15 22:3
`art
`7:11,15 8:20 10:25
`11:25 17:12 20:19
`asking
`4:2
`assume
`6:4
`attorney
`3:19
`Attorneys
`2:2,11
`authority
`12:6
`authorize
`20:5
`Avenue
`2:7
`A.A
`4:24
`
`B
`
`B 4
`
`:17
`Babcock
`2:13 3:16,17 6:6,7
`15:22,25 16:2,6 20:2
`22:21
`back
`19:16,18 21:22
`bad
`18:22
`
`A
`
`ability
`19:5
`able
`20:13
`absolutely
`11:12 15:20
`accurate
`12:23
`action
`24:12
`Adamo
`2:4 3:7,8 4:8 22:11
`add
`13:21 15:3
`adding
`5:12 14:25 15:2
`address
`8:5,22 16:13 17:3
`addressed
`7:10,12
`addresses
`8:9,24
`adjourn
`22:10
`adjourned
`22:25
`ADMINISTRATIVE
`1:18
`afternoon
`3:2,13,16 4:11
`ahead
`3:25 18:23 21:12
`Alicia
`2:9 3:10
`alicia.shah@kirkla...
`2:9
`alleged
`14:19
`allow
`19:4 20:11
`Alto
`2:8
`analysis
`8:14 16:15,17
`
`1-800-325-3376
`
`Merrill Corporation - New York
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE - 7/30/2014
`
`Page 2
`
`Ellis
`2:2,7 3:9
`entirely
`7:6 11:5
`entirety
`21:15
`error
`6:12,18 7:4,23,25
`11:11,13
`errors
`18:14 22:16
`ESQ
`2:4,5,9,13,14
`Eugene
`2:5 3:11
`eugene.goryunov@...
`2:6
`exactly
`21:24
`excuse
`10:8
`exhibit
`4:5
`exhibits
`15:4
`expert
`10:23
`explain
`5:14
`explained
`7:18
`explicit
`14:21
`explicitly
`7:12 15:13
`
`F
`
`F 2
`
`4:2
`face
`6:16
`fact
`6:10 9:9 13:20,23 16:7
`17:3,8
`fail
`
`deficiency
`20:19
`demonstrates
`16:20
`deny
`10:12 17:6
`described
`5:20
`different
`16:9,14
`directly
`5:3
`discloses
`11
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
