7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`LG DISPLAY CO. )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case No.
` v. )
` ) IPR 2015-00885
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_________________________)
`
` TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1:00 p.m.
` July 2, 2015
`
` BEFORE:
` JUDGE SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge
` JUDGE MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000684
`
`LG Display Ex. 1012
`
`
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`LG DISPLAY CO. )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case No.
` v. )
` ) IPR 2015-00885
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_________________________)
`
` TELECONFERENCE
`
` 1:00 p.m.
` July 2, 2015
`
` BEFORE:
` JUDGE SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge
` JUDGE MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000684
`
`LG Display Ex. 1012
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 2
`
` MAYER BROWN LLP
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` BY: ROBERT PLUTA, ESQ.
` - and -
` AMANDA STREFF, ESQ.
` - and -
` WILLIAM BARROW, ESQ.
`
` DAVIDSON, BERQUIST, JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
` McLean, Virginia 22102
` BY: WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000685
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Page 3
`
` JUDGE SHAW: This is Judge Shaw,
` and Judge Medley.
` Can I ask who is on the line for
` Petitioner?
` MR. PLUTA: Good afternoon, this is
` Robert Pluta, with me is Amanda Streff and
` Bill Barrow.
` JUDGE SHAW: Thank you.
` Who is on the line for the patent
` owner?
` MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your
` Honor, Wayne Helge, appearing for patent
` owner, Surpass.
` JUDGE SHAW: Do we have a court
` reporter?
` MR. PLUTA: Yes, Judge.
` JUDGE SHAW: Petitioner, you
` requested this call, so you have the
` floor, and let's hear from you first.
` MR. PLUTA: Now, Your Honor,
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000686
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` patent owner makes numerous arguments
` that are irrelevant, misleading and
` improper in its preliminary response,
` and it's our contention they fail to set
` forth why no IPR should be instituted,
` running afoul of Section 313.
` At least in the first 14 pages of
` the response, it's pretty unclear whether
` patent owner is raising issues of real
` party in interest, redundancy issues or
` both.
` What's clear to us is many of the
` facts, supposed facts that patent owner
` set forth are not accurate.
` For example, patent owner goes on
` at length about the stay that's currently
` in place in the District Court litigation.
` First of all, the stay in the
` District Court litigation should have no
` impact on whether this IPR should be
` instituted.
` Even more troubling, however, is
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000687
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 5
` patent owner's mischaracterization of that
` stay.
` It tries to cast LG Display as a
` bad actor in seeking that stay, but patent
` owner omits from its preliminary response
` that the stay was jointly requested by
` patent owner and the Defendants in that
` litigation.
` In fact, it was patent owner's own
` idea to seek the stay.
` Another example is an irrelevant
` citation to a blog post from other counsel
` for other Defendants in the litigation.
` At page 5 of the preliminary
` response, patent owner improperly
` characterizes this as counsel's blog,
` leaving the impression that counsel in
` this proceeding authored the blog; which
` is, of course, not true.
` They attach Exhibit 2001 which
` should not be considered for institution
` purposes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000688
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 6
` And the sleight of hand that they
` pull with counsel, and misleading counsel
` and suggesting that we wrote that blog
` post, which is irrelevant in any event,
` should be rejected.
` Another example of irrelevant
` arguments having no bearing on the
` institution is patent owner's arguments
` about petitions directed to an entirely
` different patent.
` They couch it in the response as
` referencing the IPR number, IPR 2015-22
` rather than the patent number, which would
` make the irrelevance clearer.
` It's a totally separate patent, not
` the patent at issue in this IPR.
` Any discussion of this unrelated
` IPR should be disregarded as irrelevant,
` and to the extent they are making some
` type of real party in interest argument,
` LG Display had no control over the grounds
` for other Petitioners, never shared our
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000689
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 7
` information, even though what was going on
` with the other petition was Surpass'
` suggestion of coordination or concerted
` effort on one Defendant's counsel is
` without any support and should be
` rejected.
` We have the facts that can rebut
` this, and to that extent we would ask for
` a reply, but really we think that it
` appropriate to strike the first 14 pages
` of patent owner's preliminary response.
` There is absolutely no coordination
` between LG Display and the other
` Defendants.
` JUDGE SHAW: I'm sorry, do you
` have anything further?
` MR. PLUTA: No. Go ahead, I'm
` sorry.
` JUDGE SHAW:: I will ask the
` patent owner to hear the response.
` MR. HELGE: Yes, Your Honor,
` thank you very much.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000690
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 8
` Just as a preliminary note, as we
` understood it, LG was seeking permission
` to file a five page reply, individually
` expand its briefing and not to move to
` strike any portion of the preliminary
` response, which is a new request, a new
` argument.
` I don't believe that that is
` properly before the Board right now.
` And, in response to the
` characterization of the first 14 pages, we
` certainly disagree that they are
` unsupported or frivolous or anything else.
` Frankly, they are quite relevant to
` redundancy and 325(d) issues.
` To the extent the Petitioner talks
` about misleading or mischaracterizing
` what's in the stay, what's in the
` exhibits, well frankly the blog post is
` provided as Exhibit 2001.
` Exhibits 2002 both go in or
` actually include the filings in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000691
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 9
` District Court, so to the extent the Board
` needs to look at those to see who were the
` actors or who is the author of that blog
` post, certainly we disagree that it's
` misleading.
` I believe we even said that it was
` counsel in another case.
` In terms of whether the Board
` should provide Petitioner a five page
` reply, I think the ultimate question is
` whether the Board is able to accord proper
` weight to Surpass' arguments, and we think
` the Board is certainly able to do so
` without LG's input on this point.
` In terms of the context of these
` cases, which I think is made clear in our
` preliminary response, but this case is a
` series of cases.
` Sharp filed a 60 page petition or
` nearly 60 page petition in IPR 2015-00021
` on the same claims that LG is attacking
` here.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000692
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 10
` LG has the advantage of Sharp's 60
` page or almost 60 page petition, they had
` the advantage of Surpass' preliminary
` response, and LG was able to accord space
` however it wished in its own petition when
` it filed, which it did use the full 60
` pages.
` In terms of -- excuse me here, in
` terms of whether LG is entitled to another
` five pages because it believes that maybe
` it should have focused more on 325(d)
` issues or something other than substantive
` issues, it certainly had the option in the
` many months when it was preparing its
` petition to decide how to use those pages.
` And I will note that, in fact, LG
` was aware that 325(d) and redundancy was a
` concern because footnote 3 on page 40 of
` its petition goes into and into some
` explanation about why this argument is
` different, even though the actual ground
` of challenge is identical from the 00021
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000693
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` case.
` They claim that they provided a
` more robust treatment, so clearly they
` were aware of 325(d), they were aware of
` the risk of offending 325(d) and calling
` in the Board's discretion to not hear the
` same issue and the same grounds a second
` time, one that had already been dismissed
` in the prior petition.
` So, the question of why LG is
` entitled to another five pages, or
` basically a one-sided expansion of the
` briefing prior to institution, frankly we
` haven't heard a reason from LG why it
` should be entitled to that.
` It had the ability to use its pages
` how it wished, and it chose one way and it
` seems now it's asking for a second chance.
` Another issue is what effect this
` additional five page briefing would have
` on their right to request a rehearing.
` The Board has in prior cases, and I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000694
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 12
` can just give one example that goes back a
` little ways, but in IPR 2013-00093 the
` Board said that there is an opportunity
` for request for rehearing if you believe
` the Board has misinterpreted what has been
` said or how the law and the facts have
` been evaluated.
` And one other note is in terms of
` usefulness as to LG's reply, we don't
` think it would be useful, it sounds like
` LG, from what they have just said, is they
` have facts to rebut certain things, but it
` sounds to me like LG is not just asking
` for a five page reply, but also exhibits,
` perhaps another declaration; we don't
` know.
` To the extent this would make the
` case useful, or their reply useful, it
` wouldn't.
` I think the Board is well aware
` that a reply filed after a case is
` instituted raises a lot of issues about
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000695
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` whether a Petitioner is including new
` arguments to bolster the petition or
` whether they are simply trying to rebut,
` and I know that's been a common dispute
` before the Board, and this really just
` duplicates the dispute early on in the
` case.
` What's not proper and where the
` regulatory scheme of petition, preliminary
` response and institution decision is
` decided, that's the set scheme and this is
` a variation of that and it simply serves
` to complicate this case.
` JUDGE SHAW: Petitioner, do you
` have anything else in response?
` MR. PLUTA: Yes, Your Honor.
` This is Robert Pluta, a couple of
` things.
` I didn't hear anything from patent
` owner regarding any of the parent real
` party in interest issues that is what
` concerned us in the first 14 pages.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000696
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` It's pretty clear in the latter
` half of the preliminary response that they
` are directed to 315(d) issues, but the
` facts and the statements that we are
` concerned about that we would like to
` rebut is concerned in the front half of
` the brief, which like I said at the
` beginning of the call, it's unclear
` whether they are focusing on 315(d) or
` real party in interest issue.
` In any event, we would like to
` present facts that rebut that, not expand
` on what we have in our petition.
` And to another point that patent
` owner responds to, we don't contemplate
` adding any exhibits in our reply here, we
` can provide the facts in a paper.
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, may I
` have a quick word on that?
` JUDGE SHAW: Yes.
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, Wayne
` Helge for Surpass.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000697
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 15
` I would simply note that I think
` Petitioner has just really contradicted
` himself.
` He's offering to provide facts in a
` reply which should only contain attorney
` argument.
` I think that simply reaffirms the
` fact that this reply will not be useful to
` the Board, it will simply complicate
` things.
` It will couch facts as attorney
` argument, and frankly will not be useful
` towards the Board's determination on
` whether this case should be instituted.
` JUDGE SHAW: Okay, we are going
` to put you on hold for a moment while we
` confer one moment.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` JUDGE SHAW: We are back.
` Upon consideration, at this time
` the panel does not authorize leave to file
` a reply at this time.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000698
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 16
` And, in addition, to the extent the
` Petitioner wanted to file a motion to
` strike, the Petitioner is not authorized
` to file that motion at this time.
` We will follow up with a written
` order.
` This call is adjourned.
` MR. PLUTA: Thank you, Your
` Honor.
` MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your
` Honor.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000699
`
`
`
`7/2/2015
`
`LG Display Co. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Teleconference
`
`C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`I, STEPHEN J. MOORE,
`
`a Shorthand
`
`Reporter and Notary Public of the State of
`
`New York, do hereby certify:
`
`That the transcript
`
`hereinbefore set forth is a true and
`
`accurate record of said proceedings.
`
`I further 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 .
`
`<g«zz.:%_K
`
`STEPHEN J. MOORE, RPR, CRR
`
`www.Digita|EvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_000700
`
`LGD_000700
`
`
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
