`
`
`
`Filed: April 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC
`and HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR ROUTINE DISCOVERY AND
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND......................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. REASONS FOR GRANTING RELIEF ......................................................... 4
`A.
`Cross-Examination of Timothy Jezek .................................................. 5
`B.
`Request for Production No. 1 and Interrogatory No. 3 ........................ 6
`C.
`Request for Production No. 2 ............................................................... 8
`D.
`Request for Production Nos. 3-5 and Interrogatory No. 2 ................... 9
`E.
`Interrogatory No. 1 and Deposition Notice ........................................ 13
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 15
`V.
`EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`I.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s March 25, 2015 authorization (Ex. 2017) for “a
`
`motion for additional discovery that is limited to the issue of whether the DISH
`
`entities are un-named real parties-in-interest,” the patent owner, Caltech, hereby
`
`requests that the Board set a time for routine discovery under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1)(ii) and further moves for limited additional discovery pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(1). In particular, Caltech requests that the Board authorize
`
`the following discovery, as set forth in Patent Owner’s First [Proposed] Discovery
`
`Requests to Petitioner, submitted as Exhibit 20181
`Request for Production No 1: Documents and things reviewed or
`considered by Timothy Jezek in conjunction with preparation of the
`Declaration of Timothy Jezek in Support of Petitioners’ Reply Brief
`Regarding Identification of Real Parties-in-Interest, dated March 18,
`2015 (Exhibit 1070).
`Request for Production No. 2: Legal bills issued by Baker Botts
`L.L.P. and/or Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP to Hughes,
`EchoStar, and/or DISH for services rendered in connection with the
`
`
`
`1 As explained below, Exhibit 2018 is a copy of the proposed discovery requests
`
`Caltech sent to Hughes in an attempt to resolve this issue without the need to bring
`
`this motion. While this representative set of requests lists U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,961,781 and IPR 2015-0059, Caltech moves for identical discovery in all six
`
`IPRs brought by Hughes (IPR2015-00059, 060, 061, 067, 068, and 081).
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`preparation and filing of (1) the petitions in the Hughes IPRs and (2)
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions in the Hughes/DISH District
`Court Litigation, dated May 15, 2014 (see Caltech IPR Ex. 2012),
`including documents sufficient to identify the entity that remitted
`payment for the legal services and the entity that paid the filing fees
`for the Hughes IPR petitions, whether directly or indirectly.
`Request for Production No. 3: Indemnification agreements between
`DISH and Hughes, or between EchoStar and DISH, relating to the
`Hughes IPRs.
`Request for Production No. 4: Communications between Hughes, or
`Hughes’ IPR counsel, and DISH, or counsel for DISH, concerning the
`Hughes IPRs, including communications concerning drafts of the
`petitions for the Hughes IPRs, approval to file the petitions, IPR
`strategy, or the prior art cited in the petitions.
`Request for Production No. 5: Instructions by, or agreements
`involving, Hughes or DISH, or counsel for either of those parties, to
`isolate or wall off work on the Hughes IPRs from work on the
`Hughes/DISH District Court Litigation.
`Interrogatory No. 1: Please provide the names of individuals at
`Hughes, EchoStar, or DISH with decision-making authority with
`respect to the Hughes IPRs or the Hughes/DISH District Court
`Litigation.
`Interrogatory No. 2: Please state whether Hughes or DISH, or counsel
`for either of those parties, ever communicated any instructions or
`agreement to isolate or wall off work on the Hughes IPRs from work
`on the Hughes/DISH District Court Litigation.
`Interrogatory No. 3: Please identify any documents and things
`produced in response to Request for Production No. 1.
`Cross-Examination Notice: To the extent the Board determines that
`the Declaration of Timothy Jezek (Ex. 1070) is not unauthorized
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`testimony that should be struck or expunged from the record, please
`produce for cross-examination Timothy Jezek. Any cross-
`examination conducted pursuant to this notice shall be at a time and
`place as may be agreed by the parties or as may be ordered by the
`Board.
`Deposition Notice: Please produce for deposition individuals
`identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1. Any depositions
`conducted pursuant to this notice shall be at a time and place as may
`be agreed by the parties or as may be ordered by the Board.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Caltech explained in its preliminary response the numerous reasons why
`
`DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., and dishNET Satellite
`
`Broadband L.L.C. (collectively “DISH”), as well as EchoStar Corporation, should
`
`have been named as real parties-in-interest along with the petitioner, Hughes. The
`
`Board held a telephonic hearing regarding the real party-in-interest issue on
`
`February 25, 2015, during which Hughes effectively conceded EchoStar is a real
`
`party-in-interest. See Ex. 2016, 18:22-23. Following that hearing the Board
`
`authorized additional briefing directed to the issue of whether the three DISH
`
`entities should have been named real parties-in-interest in the petitions. Ex. 2015.
`
`Hughes and Caltech submitted their respective briefs on March 18, 2015. Paper
`
`Nos. 15, 16.
`
`In support of its brief, and without prior authorization from the Board,
`
`Hughes filed a declaration provided by Timothy Jezek, identified as in-house
`
`counsel at Hughes. Ex. 1070. Among other assertions, the declaration states that
`
`the decision to file the petition was made entirely by Petitioners’ in-house counsel
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`and was made independently of DISH (id. at ¶ 4), and that all attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs incurred in preparing and filing the petition was borne by Hughes alone (id.
`
`at ¶ 6). Mr. Jezek neither cites nor provides any evidence, exhibits, or factual
`
`support for these and other assertions set forth in his declaration, nor were any
`
`related exhibits provided at the time of filing.
`
`Aside from Mr. Jezek’s declaration, Hughes has provided no other
`
`evidentiary support for its contention that it properly named the real parties-in-
`
`interest beyond a single exhibit containing a portion of a motion for summary
`
`judgment filed by Hughes and DISH in one of the related district court cases.
`
`Caltech provided a copy of its discovery requests to Hughes prior to filing this
`
`motion but Hughes did not consent to provide the requested information, nor has
`
`Hughes voluntarily provided any discovery. See Ex. 2019 (4/2/15 email); Ex. 2018
`
`(attachment).
`
`III. REASONS FOR GRANTING RELIEF
`
`Caltech now requests routine discovery to cross-examine Mr. Jezek
`
`regarding his declaration as well as limited additional discovery regarding whether
`
`the DISH entities should have been named as real parties-in-interest in the
`
`petition.2 As discussed below, the additional discovery requested by Caltech is “in
`
`
`
`2 Mr. Jezek’s declaration is insufficient on its face to rebut the evidence
`
`presented in Caltech’s preliminary response. In the interest of efficiency, the
`(continued...)
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`the interests of justice” as required by 37 C.F.R. 42.51(b)(2)(i). The discovery
`
`requests are narrowly tailored to the issue of whether the DISH entities should
`
`have been named as real parties-in-interest, and take into consideration the five
`
`factor test applied in Garmin Int’l, Inc. et al v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`
`IPR2012-00001 (Decision on Motion for Additional Discovery March 5, 2013)
`
`(identifying factors (i) more than a possibility and mere allegation; (ii) litigation
`
`positions and underlying basis, (iii) ability to generate equivalent information by
`
`other means, (iv) easily understandable instructions, and (v) requests not overly
`
`burdensome to answer).
`
`A. Cross-Examination of Timothy Jezek
`
`Hughes submitted Mr. Jezek’s newly executed declaration testimony without
`
`prior authorization from the Board. Additionally, the testimony was submitted late
`
`in the petition stage such that Caltech may be prejudiced in being denied time
`
`necessary for discovery prior to a decision whether to institute, including
`
`evaluation of underlying docs and cross-exam of witness. Accordingly, the Board
`
`may deem the testimony unauthorized and expunge it from the record. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`(...continued from previous page)
`
`Board may deem it appropriate to postpone taking the requested discovery until
`
`after the Board’s institution decision, leaving open the possibility that such
`
`discovery will be unnecessary should the Board deny Hughes’ petitions.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`Paramount v. Nissim, IPR2014-00961, Paper. No. 13 at 6-7 (Decision on Request
`
`for Rehearing March 19, 2015) (finding preclusion of petitioner from submitting
`
`new testimonial evidence in briefing on real party-in-interest to be “consistent with
`
`the evidentiary limitations placed on preliminary responses”).
`
`To the extent the Board does not expunge the testimony from the record,
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii), Caltech is entitled to cross-examine Mr.
`
`Jezek regarding his declaration testimony as a matter of routine discovery. Caltech
`
`therefore requests that the Board set a time for cross-examination if the request is
`
`not otherwise rendered moot.
`
`B. Request for Production No. 1 and Interrogatory No. 3
`
`RFP No. 1 is easily understandable (Garmin factor 4), as Caltech simply
`
`requests that Hughes produce all documents reviewed or considered by Mr. Jezek
`
`during preparation of his declaration. As noted above, apart from an excerpt of a
`
`district court summary judgment motion, Mr. Jezek cites no evidentiary support for
`
`the assertions set forth in his declaration regarding, including which party (or
`
`parties) decided to file the IPR petition, controlled the petition, or paid the costs
`
`and fees for filing the petition. The Board should require Hughes to identify the
`
`specific facts and other evidence in support of Mr. Jezek’s testimony so that
`
`Caltech and the Board can properly evaluate whether the testimony should be
`
`accorded any weight. Moreover, absent the requested information, Caltech is
`
`unable to meaningfully and fully cross-examine Mr. Jezek regarding his
`
`statements. The Board has, on previous occasions, granted similar requests for
`
`additional discovery prior to cross-examination of a declarant. See Bloomberg,
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`Inc. et al. v. Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd., CBM2013-00005, Paper No. 32 at 6-7 (May
`
`29, 2013).
`
`This request is not overly burdensome to Hughes (Garmin factor 5), as the
`
`information should have already been collected during the preparation of Mr.
`
`Jezek’s declaration. Similarly, the request is not based on a mere possibility of
`
`finding something useful (Garmin factor 1), because Mr. Jezek presumably
`
`reviewed relevant documents prior to signing his declaration under penalty of
`
`perjury. On the other hand, if no responsive documents exist that fact alone would
`
`be highly relevant to the weight to be afforded Mr. Jezek’s testimony.
`
`Moreover, this request does not ask for Hughes’ litigation positions (Garmin
`
`factor 2), nor does Caltech have the ability to generate equivalent information by
`
`other means (Garmin factor 3), as only Hughes and Mr. Jezek know what
`
`documents he may have considered when preparing his declaration.
`
`Interrogatory No. 3 asks for identification of any documents produced in
`
`response to RFP No. 1. This is intended to ease the burden on all parties, and
`
`particularly to avoid the need to waste time during Mr. Jezek’s cross-examination
`
`by asking him whether each individual document produced by Hughes is
`
`something he considered when preparing his deposition. The burden of responding
`
`to Interrogatory No. 3 is light, as Hughes and Mr. Jezek can likely identify these
`
`documents quickly and easily, whereas the unnecessary burden of questioning Mr.
`
`Jezek regarding his knowledge of each produced document is much heavier.
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`C. Request for Production No. 2
`
`RFP No. 2 is also easily understandable, as it seeks documents sufficient to
`
`identify who paid for the IPR petition and the invalidity contentions in the related
`
`district court litigation. The existence of these documents is more than a mere
`
`possibility or allegation; the bills and payment records surely exist. These
`
`documents are relevant to specific positions advanced by Hughes, as well as RFP
`
`No. 1, as Mr. Jezek would likely have reviewed them when preparing his
`
`declaration. However, neither Hughes nor Mr. Jezek cites any evidentiary support
`
`in his declaration for the assertion that Hughes alone paid for the IPR. This request
`
`is therefore in the interest of justice to provide the Board and Caltech with the
`
`necessary information evaluate the credibility of Mr. Jezek’s testimony and the
`
`properly attributable weight, as well as to provide Caltech with necessary
`
`information to cross-examine Mr. Jezek on this narrow issue.
`
`Wilmer Hale and Baker Botts represent Hughes and DISH in the district
`
`court litigation, while Baker Botts also represents Hughes in the IPR. With respect
`
`to the bills related to preparation of the district court invalidity contentions, Caltech
`
`explained in its preliminary response that those contentions, served months before
`
`the IPR petition was filed, closely track with the prior art and invalidity arguments
`
`as subsequently appeared in the petition. Given the common control between
`
`EchoStar/Hughes and DISH as corporate entities, the common counsel
`
`representing Hughes and DISH in the district court litigation and Hughes in the
`
`IPR, the representation to the district court by counsel on behalf of Hughes and
`
`DISH that “we anticipate bringing an IPR review in the patent office,” and
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`numerous other factors discussed in Caltech’s preliminary response and additional
`
`briefing on the real-party-in-interest issue, Caltech has good reason to believe that
`
`DISH participated, either actively or financially, in the preparation of the invalidity
`
`contentions which eventually became the IPR petition. Evidence of this would add
`
`to the totality of the circumstances showing DISH should have been named a real
`
`party-in-interest.
`
`This request is not overly burdensome to Hughes as it is narrowly targeted to
`
`a specific, easy to identify, group of documents. Moreover, to the extent Hughes
`
`objects based on privilege, the discovery requests provide instructions allowing for
`
`redaction of information such as narrative work descriptions that might reveal
`
`privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Also, this request
`
`does not ask for Hughes’ litigation positions, as it is directed to identification of the
`
`party or parties responsible for paying for the legal work rather than the substance
`
`of the work itself. In any event, the relevant legal positions have already been
`
`disclosed by Hughes in both the district court invalidity contentions and the
`
`petition. Finally, Caltech does not have the ability to generate equivalent
`
`information by other means as the billing information is not public or otherwise
`
`accessible to Caltech.
`
`D. Request for Production Nos. 3-5 and Interrogatory No. 2
`
`Granting Caltech’s request for each of RFP Nos. 3-5 is in the interest of
`
`justice, as they are directed to information that is highly relevant to the real party-
`
`in-interest issue. At the same time it is unclear from Mr. Jezek’s declaration
`
`whether he considered any of this information, as his carefully worded testimony
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`did not address these topics in a way that rebuts the evidence Caltech provided in
`
`its preliminary response. These requests therefore would provide the Board and
`
`Caltech with the necessary information to evaluate the credibility of Mr. Jezek’s
`
`testimony and what, if any, weight to it should be given, and are also necessary to
`
`cross-examine Mr. Jezek as to whether he considered all relevant documents when
`
`preparing his testimony. Each of the requests is easy to understand and narrowly
`
`targeted to relevant information. Moreover, each of them seeks information
`
`uniquely in the hands of Hughes that is not available to Caltech through any other
`
`means.
`
`Caltech’s RFP No. 3 is easily understandable, as it seeks indemnification
`
`agreements between DISH and either EchoStar or Hughes relating to the IPR. The
`
`existence of such documents is not based on speculation. As Caltech explained in
`
`its preliminary response, EchoStar’s own public SEC filings explain that DISH is
`
`contractually obligated to indemnify EchoStar (including presumably its subsidiary
`
`Hughes) for liabilities or damages arising from intellectual property claims as well
`
`as DISH’s acts or omissions. Prelim. Resp. p. 10; Ex. 2006 pp. 174, 186-188.
`
`These public statements provide evidence of a strong likelihood that DISH has a
`
`“pre-existing substantive legal relationship” with EchoStar creating a financial
`
`interest in this proceeding, a factor that would contribute to a finding that DISH is
`
`a real party-in-interest. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 893-895 (2008); 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48759.
`
`While Caltech raised the indemnification issue in its preliminary response,
`
`Mr. Jezek’s declaration is silent on this point. While he states that Hughes has not
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`received any funding from DISH related to the petitions, he does not address
`
`whether such funding or reimbursement might occur in the future nor does he
`
`address whether DISH might be financially responsible for Hughes’ infringement
`
`of the subject patent, or rebut in any way the evidence of pre-existing substantive
`
`legal relationship cited in Caltech’s preliminary response. RFP No. 3 is intended
`
`to provide evidence to fully cross-examine Mr. Jezek on this apparent omission
`
`from his declaration.
`
`Similarly, granting this motion with respect to RFP No. 4 is also in the
`
`interest of justice given Mr. Jezek’s selective testimony. While Mr. Jezek is
`
`careful to state that DISH did not direct, control or suggest the filing of the petition
`
`or provide input specifically as to its content, his testimony does not establish that
`
`Hughes had no communications with DISH regarding the IPR or petition. Caltech
`
`is entitled to cross-examine Mr. Jezek as to which communications, if any, he
`
`reviewed when determining how to characterize DISH’s purported lack of
`
`involvement. Moreover, since Mr. Jezek has not submitted evidence establishing
`
`the underlying basis for his assertion in this regard, RFP No. 4 therefore would
`
`provide the Board and Caltech with the necessary information evaluate the
`
`credibility of Mr. Jezek’s testimony and the properly attributable weight. Any
`
`communications between Hughes and DISH regarding, e.g., IPR strategy or the
`
`prior art cited in the petitions (topics unaddressed in Mr. Jezek’s declaration)
`
`would of course be relevant to whether DISH should have been named a real party-
`
`in-interest. Again, given that DISH jointly submitted the district court invalidity
`
`contentions with Hughes and was represented by litigation counsel as planning on
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`filing an IPR, this request is not driven by mere speculation or allegation.
`
`RFP No. 5 is narrowly targeted to instructions or agreements to wall off
`
`work on the IPR from work on the district court litigation. Given that the
`
`invalidity contentions were submitted by both DISH and Hughes while the
`
`subsequent IPR petition was submitted by Hughes alone, information regarding
`
`whether preparation of the IPR petition was in any way walled off from the work
`
`on the invalidity contentions would be relevant to the real party-in-interest issue.
`
`Indeed, if any documents responsive to this request exist it seems Hughes would
`
`readily produce them. If, on the other hand, no documents are produced it will
`
`contribute to the totality of the circumstances showing DISH was inextricably
`
`connected with the preparation of the IPRs and should have been named a real
`
`party-in-interest. Moreover, as with other requests, this RFP does not require
`
`Hughes to disclose privileged information because the instructions contemplate
`
`providing redacted versions of responsive documents or identifying the existence
`
`of responsive documents through a privilege log. Accordingly, the minimal burden
`
`of responding to this narrowly-focused and highly relevant request is far
`
`outweighed by the interest of justice.
`
`Interrogatory No. 5 corresponds to RFP No. 5, and similarly seeks
`
`information regarding whether any instructions or agreements to separate work on
`
`the IPR from work on the district court litigation. Providing this request in the
`
`form of an interrogatory gives Hughes the opportunity to disclose relevant
`
`information in the event it was not captured in a written communication or other
`
`document. This request satisfies the Garmin factors for the same reasons as RFP
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`No. 5, as if anything the burden of responding to a yes or no question is even
`
`lighter than producing responsive documents.
`
`Additionally, Hughes’ briefing focuses entirely on actual control, but both
`
`Hughes and Mr. Jezek are silent as to whether DISH had the ability to exercise
`
`control over the IPR proceedings, a critical aspect of the real party-interest issue.
`
`See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453,
`
`Paper No. 88 p. 9, 11-12 (Jan. 6, 2015) (citing Taylor, 553 U.S. at 893 n.6,
`
`identifying fourth Taylor factor as “whether the third party exercised or could have
`
`exercised control over the proceeding,” and finding this factor weighed in favor of
`
`determining third party to be real party-in-interest under totality of circumstances
`
`analysis); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48750 (“[I]t should be enough that the has the
`
`actual measure of control or opportunity to control that might reasonably be
`
`expected between two formal coparties.”). As such, RFP. No. 5 and Interrogatory
`
`No. 5 are necessary to assess this key factor.
`
`E.
`
`Interrogatory No. 1 and Deposition Notice
`
`Interrogatory No. 1 is easy to understand and seeks identification of
`
`decision-makers with respect to the Hughes IPRs or the Hughes/DISH District
`
`Court Litigation. This request is necessary to fill in numerous gaps in Mr. Jezek’s
`
`declaration and to allow Caltech to cross-examine him on this issue fully.
`
`Mr. Jezek’s declaration contains numerous statements regarding DISH’s
`
`purported lack of involvement in the IPR but provides no factual details as to why
`
`these statements are true. For example, while Mr. Jezek says that “neither
`
`EchoStar nor Petitioners sought or obtained approval to file the Petition from any
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`member of the Boards of EchoStar or DISH, including Charles Ergen,” (Ex. 1070 ¶
`
`7) he does not state who did approve the filing. Similarly, he states that “DISH did
`
`not direct, control, or suggest the filing of these Petitions,” (id. at ¶ 5) but fails to
`
`identify anyone who actually did perform those functions.3 In fact, aside from
`
`stating that he has been “responsible for the pending district court case” (id. at ¶ 1)
`
`Mr. Jezek does not even represent that he, himself, had any involvement with or
`
`responsibility for the IPR petitions.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Jezek’s declaration is also silent with respect to DISH’s level
`
`of involvement in the corresponding district court litigation. As explained in the
`
`preliminary response and above, given representation by counsel for DISH and
`
`Hughes before the district court that DISH and Hughes planned to file IPR
`
`petitions, as well as the close similarity between the district court invalidity
`
`contentions and the eventual IPR petitions, it appears highly likely that DISH
`
`cannot be separated from the IPR development work. Identification of the
`
`individuals at DISH and Hughes with decision-making authority over the district
`
`
`
`3 Mr. Jezek states that “Petitioner’s in-house counsel responsible for litigation
`
`in intellectual property matters” was responsible for the “decision to file” the
`
`petitions but is silent as to the other activities identified in his declaration and does
`
`not identify any responsible in-house counsel with specificity, leaving it open for
`
`speculation whether he includes himself in that group.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`court litigation is therefore also highly relevant to the real party-in-interest issue,
`
`and in the interest of justice.
`
`This request is not burdensome. It merely requests an interrogatory response
`
`identifying specific individuals. Such a request is necessary to explore the
`
`sufficiency of Mr. Jezek’s statements. To the extent the response identifies
`
`individuals beyond Mr. Jezek, Caltech requests the opportunity to depose them
`
`regarding the separation (or lack thereof) between the district court litigation
`
`invalidity work and the preparation of the IPR petition, as well as the full extent of
`
`DISH’s involvement in and control over each.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Caltech provided ample evidence in its preliminary response to demonstrate
`
`that EchoStar/Hughes and DISH should have been named real parties-in-interest to
`
`this proceeding. Hughes’ entire effort to rebut this evidence relies on a declaration
`
`unsupported by documents and providing next to nothing in the way of specific
`
`factual information. Caltech’s discovery requests are necessary to fully explore
`
`Mr. Jezek’s assertions during his routine cross-examination. Moreover, even if the
`
`Board determines to expunge Mr. Jezek’s unauthorized declaration, the requested
`
`discovery will provide further support for a finding that DISH should have been
`
`named a real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael T. Rosato/
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`V. EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`2001
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`Aline Roumy et al., Design Methods for Irregular Repeat-Accumulate
`Codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 50, Aug. 8,
`2004.
`
`2002
`
`Frank Kienle et al., A Synthesizable IP Core for DVB-S2 LDPC Code
`Decoding, IEEE, 2005.
`
`2003 Marco Gomes et al., Factorizable Modulo M Parallel Architecture for
`DVB-S2 LDPC Decoding, Proceedings of the 6th Conference on
`Telecommunications, CONFTELE, 2007.
`
`2004 Motion to Amend, California Institute of Technology v. Hughes
`Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP (C.D. Cal.
`Sept. 30, 2014).
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Answer, California Institute of Technology v. Hughes
`Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP (C.D. Cal.
`Feb. 10, 2014).
`
`EchoStar Corporation, Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Feb. 21, 2014).
`
`EchoStar – Executive Management,
`http://www.echostar.com/Company/Executives.aspx (last visited
`Jan. 9, 2015).
`
`Cleo Millender-Belmonte, https://www.linkedin.com/pub/cleo-
`millender-belmonte/9/b72/b11 (last visited Jan. 23, 2015).
`
`DISH Network Corporation, Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Feb. 21,
`2014).
`
`2010
`
`EchoStar Corporation, Annual Report (Form 10-Q) (Nov. 6, 2014).
`
`2011
`
`Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal of Counsel,
`California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc.
`et al., No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2014).
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, California Institute of
`Technology v. Hughes Communications, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-
`07245-MRP-JEM (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2014).
`
`Certified Copy, Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings, California
`Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications, Inc., et al., No.
`CV 13-07245 MRP (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2014).
`
`Defendants’ Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, California
`Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc. et al., No.
`2:13-cv-07245-MRP (C.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2014).
`
`Email from PTAB to E. Williams, M. Rosato, G. Guy and M. Argenti
`(Feb. 25, 2015).
`
`Transcript of PTAB Board Meeting, Hughes et al. v. California
`Institute of Technology (Feb. 25, 2015).
`
`Email from PTAB to M. Rosato, M. Argenti, E. Williams and G. Guy
`(Mar. 25, 2015).
`
`Attachment from Email from M. Argenti to E. Williams and G. Guy
`(Apr. 2, 2015)
`
`2019
`
`Email from M. Argenti to E. Williams and G. Guy (Apr. 2, 2015)
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00060
`
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Request for Routine Discovery
`
`and Motion for Additional Discovery was served on this 6th day of April, 2015, on
`
`the Petitioner at the correspondence address of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`G. Hopkins Guy
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`hop.guy@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 6, 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael T. Rosato/
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
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
