Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________
` MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
` and MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
` Petitioner
` v.
` VELOCITY PATENT, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
` ____________________________
` Case IRP No.
` Patent IPR 2015-00290
` ____________________________
`
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE
`
` HONORABLE PETER CHEN
` HONORABLE GLENN J. PERRY
` HONORABLE JOHN LEE
` January 12, 2015
`
`Reported By: Ann Medis
`Ref No.: 13211
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`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
`
`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
`
` On behalf of Petitioner
` (Present via telephone)
` Celine Jimenez Crowson, Esquire
` Raymond A. Kurz, Esquire
` Joseph J. Raffetto, Esquire
` HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP
` 555 13th Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20004
` 202.637.5600
` celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
` raymond.kurz@hoganlovells.com
` joseph.raffetto@hoganlovells.com
`
` On behalf of Patent Owner
`
` (Present via telephone)
` James A. Shimota, Esquire
` MAVRAKAKIS LAW GROUP, LLP
` 180 North La Salle Street, Suite 2215
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` 312.216.1620
` jshimota@mavllp.com
`
` (Present via telephone)
` Patrick Richards, Esquire
` RICHARDS PATENT LAW, P.C.
` 233 South Wacker Drive, 84th Floor
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` 312.283.8555
`
`Page 3
` JUDGE CHEN: This is Judge Chen from the
` Patent Trial and Appeal Board. With me on the
` line are Judges Perry and Lee.
` We are here today for IPR 2015-00290, a
` request by Petitioner for a telephone conference.
` May I have the appearances of counsel,
` please.
` MS. CROWSON: Yes. Good afternoon, Your
` Honors. This is Celine Crowson with Hogan Lovells
` for Petitioner, Mercedes. And also with me are my
` colleagues, Raymond Kurz and Joseph Raffetto, also
` here with Hogan Lovells. And for Your Honors'
` benefit, we wanted to let you know we do have a
` court reporter on this call.
` JUDGE CHEN: Very well. What is the
` court reporter's name?
` COURT REPORTER: My name is Ann Medis.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you very much.
` How about appearance of counsel for Patent
` Owner, please.
` MR. SHIMOTA: Hello, Your Honor. It's
` James Shimota of the Mavrakakis Law Group
` appearing on behalf of Patent Owner.
` MR. RICHARDS: Patrick Richards of
` Richards Patent Law also appearing on behalf of
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you.
` Again, we are here pursuant to an email that
` the Board received earlier this month in which
` Petitioners requested a telephone conference to
` discuss their seeking of authorization to file a
` Motion to Stay IPR 2015-00290.
` So with that, let me hear first from counsel
` for Petitioner. Then we'll turn it over to the
` Patent Owner.
` But first go ahead, Petitioner's counsel.
` MS. CROWSON: Thank you. As stated in
` our email, Mercedes does request that the '290 IPR
` be stayed preinstitution, including all deadlines
` tolled in that proceeding pending the conclusion
` of the co-pending ex parte re-exam with the
` Control No. 90013252.
` When we had our last telephone conference
` regarding this IPR, Velocity urged that perhaps an
` approach would be to let the re-examination play
` out. Staying the 290 IPR will allow that to
` happen, but will also allow Mercedes to preserve
` its ability to challenge the '290 patent through
` the IPR process.
` If one considers practically how this may
`
`Page 5
`
` play out, if the IPR is stayed pursuant to
` Mercedes' request, if no claims survive ex parte
` re-exam, once the stay of the '290 IPR is lifted,
` the IPR can simply be dismissed or not instituted.
` If, however, claims of the patent do survive
` ex parte re-exam, then Petitioner, Mercedes, can
` conform the '290 IPR to the claims, if
` appropriate, under the IPR standards, and the IPR
` '290 would proceed.
` We think the Board has the power to stay the
` '290 IPR, at least under 37 C.S.R. 42.122, which
` says the Board can institute any order with an eye
` towards staying or consolidating or joining
` proceedings when they're co-pending regarding the
` same patent.
` And I think perhaps most importantly is that
` the balance of prejudice and harms weighs in favor
` of staying the '290 IPR. There's no undue
` prejudice to Patent Owner by staying the '290 IPR
` and allowing the re-exam to play out. The
` re-examination is in its advanced stages. A
` couple of responses have already been filed, and
` the next action from the Office would be expected
` soon.
` Conversely, Mercedes will be unduly
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6
` prejudiced if the IPR is met and claims come out
` of re-exam with Velocity urging that Mercedes
` should not be permitted to file a new IPR.
` So for all of these reasons, especially the
` balance of the prejudice and the harms, we request
` that the '290 IPR be stayed pending the outcome of
` the co-pending re-exam proceeding.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you, counsel.
` How about counsel for Patent Owner. I'd like
` to hear from you on this.
` MR. SHIMOTA: Yes, Your Honor. Thank
` you. Where we start on this is that the petition,
` which was filed by Mercedes, is legally
` impermissible. The '290 IPR specifically is
` directed to application claims pending in the
` re-examination.
` If you look to 35 U.S.C. Section 311(b), it
` is explicit that the scope of an IPR petition
` needs to be limited to the claims of an issued
` patent. So the IPR petition that is pending
` before the Board is simply impermissible, and what
` Mercedes is asking the Board to do is to take an
` improper petition, which is legally impermissible,
` and to wait and see whether it might be
` permissible down the road.
`
`Page 7
`
` Our primary position is that that's just
` simply, as a matter of law, wrong, and that is why
` petition should be denied.
` Turning to the factual argument raised by
` Mercedes, I think what can't be lost in this call
` is that in litigation, Mercedes was accused of
` infringing claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15
` and 17 to 32 of the '781 patent. Those claims
` coincidentally are the ones that are involved in
` the re-examination and where re-examination was
` sought by Volkswagen, the parent of Audi, who has
` also been sued on those claims.
` So what the Board should know is that
` Mercedes had the opportunity to seek an IPR of
` claims that actually are asserted against it now
` and made the strategic choice not to assert an IPR
` on those claims.
` And in that litigation, Mercedes has
` presented invalidity contentions and, again, made
` the strategic choice that extensive litigation
` begins again in the Northern District of Illinois,
` that it will pursue an invalidity case there. It
` can pursue invalidity elsewhere so that the
` prejudice argument that Mercedes raised suffers in
` that regard.
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 8
` Moreover, Mercedes says that the balance of
` prejudice clearly is in their hand. My response
` to that is how does Mercedes know that? The
` claims have not even issued yet. So until they
` issue, there cannot be an infringement. I did not
` notice today whether or not models of Mercedes
` vehicles which will be on the market if and when
` the claims arise are infringing or not. They very
` well may be, but I don't know that today. And
` unless Mercedes does, the argument they make
` regarding prejudiced is simply speculative.
` So under the circumstances, I think the
` proper course is for the Board to deny the '290
` petition. And to the extent that claims arise out
` of the re-examination, Mercedes can -- and to the
` extent that they are asserted against Mercedes in
` litigation, Mercedes has a number of options,
` including defending against them in litigation.
` Mercedes also could file its own re-examination at
` that point in time.
` And, moreover, to the extent that there was a
` pending IPR, Mercedes could also seek to join a
` petition with a pending IPR regarding '781 patent
` claims. In that regard, it's important for the
` Board to note Volkswagen has also filed what is
`
`Page 9
` IPR Petition 2015-00276 in which it is challenging
` claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 17 to
` 32. As the Board knows, claims 31 and 32 have now
` been canceled. So those will not be at issue.
` For the Board's information, I believe the
` Patent Owner's response is due to Volkswagen's
` petition on December 9, 2015.
` JUDGE CHEN: I'm sorry. Counsel, could
` you repeat that matter number? Was it IPR 00276
` did you say?
` MR. SHIMOTA: That's correct, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you.
` Let me ask you, if I may, whether Patent
` Owner believes that a new IPR would be time barred
` at some point down the road? What is your
` thinking on that?
` MR. SHIMOTA: It very may well be, Your
` Honor. Under current case law, I think that we
` might make an argument that the petition is time
` barred. And frankly, it's an adversary system,
` and to the extent that we have that argument, we
` absolutely would make it if Mercedes filed the
` petition. But candidly, I can't say for certain
` right now.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 10
` The law could change. There's a potential
` for a Petition for Joinder. But I do think under
` the case Mercedes has cited, that we would at
` least, to the extent the claims issue and Mercedes
` filed a subsequent IPR, that Patent Owner would
` have an argument that that petition would be time
` barred, yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you. Let me, if I
` may, can I ask Petitioner's counsel if they have
` any response to the remarks from Patent Owner?
` MS. CROWSON: I think we have hit really
` on the key issue, Your Honor, and that is putting
` aside what Mercedes' options may be in district
` court, Mercedes desires to preserve its ability to
` challenge through the IPR process the patents at
` hand, and we feel that the way to do that is to
` stay the '290 IPR out of concern that Velocity
` will make the arguments that it just articulated.
` And we do think that because this is an issue
` of the regulations, that there is the broad power
` of the Board to issue orders that stay or
` consolidate or join proceedings exactly in
` situations like this. So I think that this issue
` regarding the balance of the prejudice and the
` balance of the harms here looms very much large
`
`Page 11
`
` and favors Mercedes' request.
` JUDGE CHEN: So let me, if I may, ask
` you what I asked directly to Patent Owner's
` counsel. Does Petitioner believe that the later
` IPR that would be filed at some point down the
` road would possibly be time barred?
` MS. CROWSON: We have the concern and I
` believe we articulated it in our email and on our
` last call that Velocity would make that argument.
` And we disagree with the position, but we would be
` faced with that argument. And obviously if we
` lost it, then we would have lost any opportunity
` to challenge the patents at hand through an IPR.
` So we would oppose the argument, but we're
` concerned that Velocity would make it.
` JUDGE CHEN: Anything further from
` Petitioner at this point?
` MS. CROWSON: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE CHEN: Patent Owner?
` MR. SHIMOTA: The only thing I would
` add, again just to start where I began, is while
` Mercedes notes the fact that there are regulations
` which provide authority to the Board, and I
` respectfully agree that the Board has broad
` authority to manage its dockets, starting from the
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 12
` position that Section 311 only allows petitions
` for patent claims, I would submit that the
` position that Mercedes submitted is impermissible
` as a matter of statute and respectfully the
` statute has to trump the regulations.
` I would add, again, too, that Mercedes had
` the option of challenging certain patent claims
` that are currently asserted against Mercedes, and
` Mercedes made the strategic choice to not do so.
` And, consequently, given that there's presently a
` petition which involves petition application
` claims, which actually aren't even pending before
` the Examiner any longer, the proper course is for
` the petition to be denied and to deal with any
` issues down the road as they arise, if they may.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you, counsel. We are
` going to, we being the panel, we're going to put
` you on mute and confer for a moment and be back.
` Before we do that, I have one more question
` of Petitioner's counsel. And that is: By seeking
` authorization to file a Motion for Stay, would you
` be requesting the Board, this Panel to do
` something, so to speak, extraordinary in terms of
` perhaps having to extend the statutory deadlines
` imposed upon us beyond the time periods provided
`
`Page 13
` for in the AIA and the regulations that have been
` followed in the past couple years?
` MS. CROWSON: We don't think so, Your
` Honor, because in its current stage, with the stay
` of the IPR, all of the upcoming deadlines would
` also be tolled, such as the deadline for Patent
` Owner to file its response to the IPR which has
` not been filed yet. So in its current state, we
` think that the IPR could be stayed, all upcoming
` deadlines tolled, and that that would not be
` contrary to any statute or regulation.
` With respect to the statute that Patent Owner
` references, this may be an area of initial
` impression. The statute hasn't been interpreted.
` And we think, again, that with there being no
` prohibition, as I explained, and with the IPR in
` the early stage it's in, that the stay can be
` effected and there's no statute or reg. that
` prohibits that.
` JUDGE CHEN: I appreciate that, counsel.
` I am going to go ahead and put the parties on
` mute. Please stay on the line. The panel will
` confer and will be back to you shortly.
` (There was a pause in the proceedings.)
` JUDGE CHEN: This is Judge Chen of the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`Page 14
` Patent Trial and Appeal Board. I and Judge Perry
` and Judge Lee are back.
` Do we have counsel for both parties?
` MS. CROWSON: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. SHIMOTA: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE CHEN: And is the court reporter,
` Ms. Medis, still on the line?
` COURT REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE CHEN: Just a couple of follow-up
` questions. I appreciate your patience while we
` were conferring.
` I wanted to ask the Petitioner's counsel,
` you've mentioned both in the email earlier in the
` month and then on this phone call, you mentioned
` the concept of tolling.
` What's your authority for the ability of the
` Panel to toll deadlines?
` MS. CROWSON: It's the ability to stay
` the proceeding. I think an effect of staying, the
` effect of staying the '290 IPR will be to toll,
` for example, the deadline for Patent Owner to file
` its response. So the authority is the Board's
` ability to stay proceedings, and that results in a
` tolling of all deadlines, for example, such as the
` Patent Owner's filing of its response.
`
`Page 15
` JUDGE CHEN: How does that align with
` Section 314(b) which on its face appears to
` provide for no tolling?
` MS. CROWSON: Let me pull that.
` JUDGE CHEN: That talks about the timing
` of our institution of an IPR, and as we're all
` well aware, there are certain timing deadlines
` that are imposed pursuant to Section 314.
` In addition, I wanted to get -- let's talk
` this out a little bit. How long could this stay
` be in place? I know you mentioned in your remarks
` that there was perhaps an expectation, at least
` from your side, that -- I think you said the
` re-exam is in some advanced stage and that the
` next Office Action was expected soon.
` What's the outside boundary of this as far as
` months or years that this IPR might be stayed, and
` how would that affect the ability of the Board to
` comply with the statutory periods that are imposed
` on us both for institution and for completion of
` the trial?
` MS. CROWSON: I think with respect to
` the statutory periods that are imposed, the timing
` relates to initially the receipt of a preliminary
` response to the petition, which hasn't been filed
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 16
` in this case yet. So there's no timing that
` started, no statutory timing that started with
` respect to that.
` In a situation where no preliminary response
` is filed, that turns to the regs. in which the
` Director or the Board can determine that outside
` timeframe. So we think that in a situation like
` this where no preliminary response to the petition
` has been filed, the statutory deadline is not
` triggered.
` So we don't think there's any prohibition or
` any contravention of the timing requirements in
` the statute with respect to the status of this
` particular IPR.
` With respect to how long the stay may be
` effected, it's tough to have guarantees, but here
` there have at least been a couple of responses
` filed. One would expect the next Office Action to
` be final. And so our thought is that the
` re-examination proceeding is in its very late
` stages.
` JUDGE CHEN: All right. One other
` question for you. Then I'll turn it over to
` Patent Owner for any last remarks.
` What would occur if there were not any
`
`Page 17
`
` tolling, this concept of tolling that you
` introduced? Would it be the fact that absent
` tolling, this IPR 00290 would in a stay situation
` have the potential to extend far beyond the
` statutory deadlines for completion of an AIA
` proceeding?
` MS. CROWSON: No, Your Honor, and I
` think -- I used the word tolling, but as
` mentioned, I think that's an effect, it's a
` necessary effect of the stay. With the IPR being
` stayed prior to institution, the deadline, for
` example, for Patent Owner's preliminary response
` would also be stayed. I think the word stay works
` across the board.
` And the thought, practically speaking, is
` that when the re-examination concludes, which one
` would expect to be not inordinately far out, if no
` claim survives re-examination, then the -- when
` the stay is lifted, the IPR would be dismissed.
` If claims do survive re-examination and the
` re-examination certificate is issued, then we do
` have claims to which we can conform the IPR when
` the stay is lifted.
` So we are not anticipating that this would
` take an extraordinary amount of time given the
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
` status of the re-exam.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you.
` As you can imagine, the Panel is listening to
` your arguments regarding the stay and tolling.
` And we as a Panel and the PTAB are certainly
` cognitive of the legislative history that's behind
` the AIA and the intent of these proceedings to be
` expeditious and to have a fairly certain end date.
` So I appreciate your comments and thoughts on
` what it is you would be seeking to effect here
` with your request.
` Let me have any final comments from counsel
` from Patent Owner, please.
` MR. SHIMOTA: Yes, Your Honor. Thank
` you.
` I think it's important again for the Board to
` note what Mercedes just has noted, discussion of
` conforming claims once the re-examination is over,
` and the reason they're talking about that is that
` the claims that are at issue, the application
` claims that are at issue in their petition are not
` even pending in the re-examination any longer.
` And we take a step back. Except for claims
` 31 and 32, the actual claims of the patent before
` the re-examiner have already been preliminarily
`
`Page 19
` allowed. So our expectation is that there will
` shortly be a certificate of allowing the pending
` claims and the new claims relatively soon, but
` there's no certainty about that.
` That being said, if new claims issue and
` Mercedes gets the relief it wants, it's not as if
` the proceedings will simply just start up.
` Instead, what Mercedes will ask the Panel is to
` submit a new petition in which it addresses the
` actual claims that have been allowed, and then
` there presumably will be a period of time to
` respond to that by the Patent Owner as required by
` the statute, which will greatly push out the
` amount of time it will take for this proceeding to
` complete.
` And as Your Honor has hinted at, the reason
` for inter partes review was that Congress felt the
` old inter partes re-examination took way too much
` time and languished and lagged on for many, many
` months or many years. Excuse me.
` So they changed and made the inter partes
` review proceeding in order that you would have a
` just and speedy proceeding in which both sides'
` interest would be taken care of.
` Either the Petitioner would have a chance to
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 20
` see patent claims canceled or the Patent Owner
` would have a chance to have the proceedings done
` as soon as possible so that it could go back to
` court or wherever and begin enforcing its rights.
` So here what Mercedes is asking is, in our
` view, for you to simply ignore 35 U.S.C.
` Section 311, potentially to ignore 35 U.S.C.
` Section 314, and what it's asking for instead,
` what we suggest, is that the petition should be
` dismissed, and to the extent that there are claims
` that issue which might be asserted against
` Mercedes in the future -- I don't know what their
` products will be -- Mercedes has a number of
` options including filing a petition and arguing
` that the case that disallowed or held that
` re-examination claims were time barred is either
` distinguishable or wrong as a matter of law,
` either to a Panel, and moving it up to the full
` Board to argue that point of law.
` And we submit that is the proper course
` rather than entering a ruling which will twist and
` contort a number of statutes under the AIA and
` likely will lead to very wrong and unintended
` results in the future.
` So with that I will conclude. Thank you,
`
`Page 21
`
` Your Honor, and the Board.
` MS. CROWSON: I would like to make one
` comment if it's okay.
` JUDGE CHEN: All right, counsel.
` MS. CROWSON: Just quickly, with respect
` to the statutes, because we understand that
` concern, for the reasons I stated, 314 will not be
` contravened because those statutory deadlines are
` only triggered by the preliminary response by
` Patent Owner which has not been filed in this IPR.
` So 314 is not triggered.
` 311 talks about institution, institution of
` an IPR with respect to claims. Once the
` re-examination certificate is issued, there will
` be claims that have issued. So 311 is not
` triggered because that talks about institution,
` not where the IPR is in its current state,
` preinstitution.
` And then Velocity did confirm and confirmed
` it more strongly than Mercedes was able to that it
` is expected that a re-examination certificate will
` issue shortly. I think relatively soon were the
` words that were used.
` So again, I think we are in a situation here
` where we can conform and treat these proceedings
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`Page 24
` R E P O R T E R ' S C E R T I F I C A T E
`
` I hereby certify that the transcript of
` the proceedings and evidence contained herein are
` a true and accurate transcription of my
` stenographic notes taken by me at the time and
` place of the within cause; that the transcription
` was reduced to printing under my direction; and
` that this is a true and correct transcript of the
` same.
`
` ___________________________ January 12, 2015
` Ann Medis, RPR
`
`1
`
`2345
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 22
` together in a relatively short timeframe to effect
` the efficiencies that are all over the legislative
` history and the need to make sure that there
` aren't proceedings that are thwarted or contrary
` to one another.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thank you both.
` MR. SHIMOTA: Can I make one last
` comment, Your Honor?
` JUDGE CHEN: I think feeling a little --
` I'll let you make this one last comment, counsel.
` This is, I understand, an issue that is not an
` everyday one. I appreciate counsel's desire to be
` heard. Please proceed and please be as brief and
` succinct as possible.
` MR. SHIMOTA: One point, Your Honor.
` Thank you.
` 358 U.S.C. Section 311(b) pertains to scope,
` and it states, "A petitioner at inter partes
` review may request to cancel as unpatentable one
` or more claims of a patent only on a ground that
` can be raised under Section 102 or Section 103 and
` only on the basis of prior art consisting of
` patents or printed publications."
` So this is not a section that goes to
` post-institution proceedings. This goes to the
`
`Page 23
` very scope and content of petition for inter
` partes review. It limits the grounds which may be
` asserted, and it is explicit that it may only be
` one or more claims of a patent.
` That's entirely consistent with the fact that
` the Patent Office wanted to make an IPR an
` adjudicatory proceeding rather than something like
` an examination.
` With that, I know you want to be brief, so
` I'll conclude there, Your Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE CHEN: Thanks to both sides'
` counsel. I would ask the court reporter,
` Ms. Medis, to endeavor to file the transcript with
` the PTAB as soon as practicable.
` With that, again, thank you for everyone's
` time and attention. And we are adjourned.
` MS. CROWSON: Thank you, Your Honors.
` MR. SHIMOTA: Thank you.
` (Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the instant
` hearing ceased.)
`
`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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 24)
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`A
`ability 4:23 10:14
`14:16,18,23 15:18
`able 21:20
`absent 17:2
`absolutely 9:23
`accurate 24:7
`accused 7:6
`action 5:23 15:15
`16:18
`actual 18:24 19:10
`add 11:21 12:6
`addition 15:9
`addresses 19:9
`adjourned 23:16
`adjudicatory 23:7
`advanced 5:21
`15:14
`adversary 9:21
`affect 15:18
`afternoon 3:8
`agree 11:24
`ahead 4:11 13:21
`AIA 13:1 17:5 18:7
`20:22
`align 15:1
`allow 4:21,22
`allowed 19:1,10
`allowing 5:20 19:2
`allows 12:1
`amount 17:25
`19:14
`Ann 1:23 3:17
`24:15
`anticipating 17:24
`Appeal 1:3 3:2 14:1
`appearance 3:19
`appearances 3:6
`appearing 3:23,25
`appears 15:2
`application 6:15
`12:11 18:20
`appreciate 13:20
`14:10 18:9 22:12
`approach 4:20
`appropriate 5:8
`area 13:13
`
`argue 20:19
`arguing 20:14
`argument 7:4,24
`8:10 9:20,22 10:6
`11:9,11,14
`arguments 10:18
`18:4
`art 22:22
`articulated 10:18
`11:8
`aside 10:13
`asked 11:3
`asking 6:22 20:5,8
`assert 7:16
`asserted 7:15 8:16
`12:8 20:11 23:3
`attention 23:16
`Audi 7:11
`authority 11:23,25
`14:16,22
`authorization 4:6
`12:21
`aware 15:7
`B
`back 12:18 13:23
`14:2 18:23 20:3
`balance 5:17 6:5
`8:1 10:24,25
`barred 9:15,21
`10:7 11:6 20:16
`basis 22:22
`began 11:21
`begins 7:21
`behalf 2:1,8 3:23
`3:25
`believe 9:5 11:4,8
`believes 9:15
`benefit 3:13
`beyond 12:25 17:4
`bit 15:10
`board 1:3 3:2 4:4
`5:10,12 6:21,22
`7:13 8:13,25 9:3
`10:21 11:23,24
`12:22 14:1 15:18
`16:6 17:14 18:16
`
`20:19 21:1
`Board's 9:5 14:22
`boundary 15:16
`brief 22:13 23:9
`broad 10:20 11:24
`C
`
`C 24:1,1
`C.S.R 5:11
`call 3:14 7:5 11:9
`14:14
`cancel 22:19
`canceled 9:4 20:1
`candidly 9:24
`care 19:24
`case 1:10 7:22 9:19
`10:3 16:1 20:15
`cause 24:9
`ceased 23:20
`Celine 2:2 3:9
`celine.crowson@...
`2:6
`certain 9:24 12:7
`15:7 18:8
`certainly 18:5
`certainty 19:4
`certificate 17:21
`19:2 21:14,21
`certify 24:5
`challenge 4:23
`10:15 11:13
`challenging 9:1
`12:7
`chance 19:25 20:2
`change 10:1
`changed 19:21
`Chen 1:16 3:1,1,15
`3:18 4:2 6:8 9:8
`9:13 10:8 11:2,16
`11:19 12:16 13:20
`13:25,25 14:6,9
`15:1,5 16:22 18:2
`21:4 22:6,9 23:11
`Chicago 2:11,15
`choice 7:16,20 12:9
`circumstances 8:12
`cited 10:3
`
`claim 17:18
`claims 5:2,5,7 6:1
`6:15,19 7:7,8,12
`7:15,17 8:4,8,14
`8:24 9:2,3 10:4
`12:2,7,12 17:20
`17:22 18:18,20,21
`18:23,24 19:3,3,5
`19:10 20:1,10,16
`21:13,15 22:20
`23:4
`clearly 8:2
`co-pending 4:16
`5:14 6:7
`cognitive 18:6
`coincidentally 7:9
`colleagues 3:11
`come 6:1
`comment 21:3 22:8
`22:10
`comments 18:9,12
`complete 19:15
`completion 15:20
`17:5
`comply 15:19
`concept 14:15 17:1
`concern 10:17 11:7
`21:7
`concerned 11:15
`conclude 20:25
`23:10
`concludes 17:16
`conclusion 4:15
`confer 12:18 13:23
`conference 1:14
`3:5 4:5,18
`conferring 14:11
`confirm 21:19
`confirmed 21:19
`conform 5:7 17:22
`21:25
`conforming 18:18
`Congress 19:17
`consequently 12:10
`considers 4:25
`consistent 23:5
`consisting 22:22
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal SolutionsTransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`212-400-8845 -- depo@transperfect.com
`
`Page 25
`consolidate 10:22
`consolidating 5:13
`contained 24:6
`content 23:1
`contentions 7:19
`contort 20:22
`contrary 13:11
`22:4
`contravened 21:8
`contravention
`16:12
`Control 4:17
`Conversely 5:25
`correct 9:11 24:11
`counsel 3:6,19 4:8
`4:11 6:8,9 9:8
`10:9 11:4 12:16
`12:20 13:20 14:3
`14:12 18:12 21:4
`22:10 23:12
`counsel's 22:12
`couple 5:22 13:2
`14:9 16:17
`course 8:13 12:13
`20:20
`court 3:14,16,17
`10:14 14:6,8 20:4
`23:12
`Crowson 2:2 3:8,9
`4:12 10:11 11:7
`11:18 13:3 14:4
`14:18 15:4,22
`17:7 21:2,5 23:17
`current 9:19 13:4,8
`21:17
`currently 12:8
`D
`
`D.C 2:5
`date 18:8
`deadline 13:6
`14:21 16:9 17:11
`deadlines 4:14
`12:24 13:5,10
`14:17,24 15:7
`17:5 21:8
`deal 12:14
`
`MERCEDES
`EXHIBIT 1018
`
`

`

`December 9:7
`defending 8:18
`denied 7:3 12:14
`deny 8:13
`desire 22:12
`desires 10:14
`determine 16:6
`directed 6:15
`direction 24:10
`directly 11:3
`Director 16:6
`disagree 11:10
`disallowed 20:15
`discuss 4:6
`discussion 18:17
`dismissed 5:4
`17:19 20:10
`distinguishable
`20:17
`district 7:21 10:13
`dockets 11:25
`Drive 2:15
`due 9:6
`
`E
`E 24:1,1,1,1
`earlier 4:4 14:13
`early 13:17
`effect 14:19,20 17:9
`17:10 18:10 22:1
`effected 13:18
`16:16
`efficiencies 22:2
`either 19:25 20:16
`20:18
`email 4:3,13 11:8
`14:13
`endeavor 23:13
`enforcing 20:4
`entering 20:21
`entirely 23:5
`especially 6:4
`Esquire 2:2,3,3,10
`2:14
`everyday 22:12
`everyone's 23:15
`evidence 24:6
`
`ex 4:16 5:2,6
`exactly 10:22
`examination 23:8
`Examiner 12:13
`example 14:21,24
`17:12
`Excuse 19:20
`expect 16:18 17:17
`ex