Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`June 17, 2016
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`--------------------------------------------------x
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
` vs.
`OPENTV, INC.,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`--------------------------------------------------x
` Case IPR2015-01031; (Patent 7,900,229 B2)
`
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` HONORABLE JAMES B. ARPIN
` HONORABLE DAVID C. MC KONE
` June 17, 2016
` 1:00 p.m.
`
`Reported by: Carrie LaMontagne, CSR
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`OpenTV Exhibit 2002
`Apple v. OpenTV
`IPR2015-01031
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PATENT OWNERS:
` ERIKA H. ARNER, ESQ.
` CORY BELL, ESQ.
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virgina 20190
` (571) 203-2700
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS
` MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN, ESQ.
` MARK M LLER, ESQ.
` O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
` Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
` San Francisco, California 94111
` (415) 984-8880
`
`3
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Good afternoon. This is
`Judge Arpin joined on this call by Judge McKone.
`This is a call for IPR2015-01031, Apple V. OpenTV.
`This call was requested by both parties, and I'd like
`to begin with the roll call.
`Who do I have on the call for the petitioner, please?
` MR. MILLER: Good morning, this is
`Mark Miller of O'Melveny & Myers. With me is
`Melody Drummond Hansen. Ms. Hansen will be arguing
`today.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you. Who do we have on
`the call for the patent owner, please? I guess we
`don't have anybody from the patent owner right now.
`We'll wait for the patent owner to join.
` MS. ARNER: Is anyone waiting for me? This
`is Erika Arner. I've been on for a couple minutes.
` JUDGE ARPIN: This is Judge Arpin. I
`announced earlier that we were on the call with Judge
`McKone and that this is a call for IPR2015-01031.
` Ms. Arner, you're here representing the patent
`owner?
` MS. ARNER: Yes, I am. I'm lead counsel
`for the patent owner, and I apologize. I dialed in
`about a minute soon and I think I missed your
`introduction. And I just thought we were in 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
`
`June 17, 2016
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`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
`
`silence before the judges joined period. So forgive
`me.
` JUDGE ARPIN: That's all right. Are you
`alone in this call, Ms. Arner?
` MS. ARNER: I'm joined by my colleague
`Cory Bell, and we're both here on behalf of OpenTV,
`the patent owner.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Is Cory Bell an attorney of
`record in this case?
` MS. ARNER: No, Cory's not of record. He's
`an associate at our firm who has worked on the case.
`He's not entered an appearance before the board.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Hold on for one
`second, Ms. Arner.
` Do counsel for petitioner have any objection to
`Mr. -- to Cory Bell, I don't know if that's a Mister
`or Miss --
` MS. ARNER: Mister.
` JUDGE ARPIN: -- participating in this
`call?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Would the
`attorneys for the petitioner introduce themselves
`again for the benefit of Ms. Arner.
` MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor. Mark Miller
`
`5
`
`of O'Melveny & Myers and with me is
`Melody Drummond Hansen.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Counsel, I
`understand we have a court reporter on the call
`today; is that correct?
` THE REPORTER: Yes, I'm here.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much. I'll
`address the court reporter.
` To the extent that it is possible, I would
`appreciate it if you would not interrupt during the
`conference. In that regard, I would ask counsel to
`identify themselves for the benefit of the court
`reporter before they begin to speak. And if it is
`necessary to interrupt during the call, I would ask
`the court reporter to try to keep it to a minimum if
`that's possible.
` Also, it will be necessary for any transcript of
`this call to be -- to be filed with the board. Who
`is providing the court reporter today? Is it the
`petitioner or patent owner?
` MS. ARNER: The patent owner.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. So Patent Owner,
`I assume the transcript will go to you. I would
`appreciate it if you would provide a copy to the
`petitioner so that they can address any errata before
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`June 17, 2016
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`8
`
`6
`
`the transcript is filed. That will simplify the
`process. And it will probably not be possible, of
`course, for the transcript to be filed before the
`hearing on Tuesday, but I would ask the parties to
`work together to try to prepare the transcript for
`filing as soon as poss ble.
` Is that understood, Petitioner?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Patent Owner?
` MS. ARNER: Yes, sir.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you. All right. This
`call was, as I mentioned a few moments ago, requested
`by both parties, Patent Owner initially and then
`Petitioner raised its own objections to the patent
`owner's slides. This call is going to be directed to
`the demonstratives.
` Before we begin, I'd like to remind the parties
`of some things we told them in the trial order.
`First, we noted that neither party may file a
`demonstrative without our prior authorization. The
`demonstrative exhibits are not evidence. They are
`merely visual aids to be used at the oral argument.
` The demonstrative exh bits may not introduce new
`evidence or raise new arguments, but instead should
`site to the evidence in the record. So we expect
`
`7
`
`that any of the demonstratives will identify where
`they are supported in the record.
` The board may ask any -- ask the parties to
`confine any objections to the demonstratives to those
`identifying egregious violations that are prejudicial
`to the administration of justice and that although we
`were going to ask the parties to provide paper copies
`of their demonstratives to the court reporter on the
`day of the hearing, those paper copies are not part
`of the record. So the demonstratives are not
`evidence and will not become part of the record.
` With that said, I'm going to let the patent
`owner speak first since they initially requested this
`call. Please explain to us the basis of your
`objections.
` MS. ARNER: Thank you, your Honor. On
`behalf of OpenTV, we have objections to the
`petitioner's slides because many of the slides
`represent a -- really a continuing problem that the
`patent owner has stated throughout this proceeding,
`which is that the petitioner continues to revise and
`develop its arguments, which is improper here in an
`IPR where the petitioner bears the burden of proof
`and must put its entire case in the petition. And it
`was in writing and with particularity as the statute
`
`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
`
`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
`
`requires.
` This continued revision, development,
`augmentation of arguments is prejudicial to the
`patent owner because certainly in the reply and even
`more so in the oral hearing, new arguments do not
`give the patent owner any opportunity to respond or
`to put in new evidence or arguments. And the rules
`and the statute of an IPR proceeding are set up to
`avoid that prejudice of the patent owner by requiring
`everything the -- the petitioners put in its entirety
`in the petition.
` Given what you have reminded us of and what the
`board has previously told the parties, I'll focus on
`just a couple of egregious points, as you called
`them, on sort of -- there are a couple of types of
`problems with the demonstratives that really are
`the --
` JUDGE ARPIN: Patent Owner, I hate to
`interrupt because I did tell you to speak and I did
`tell the court reporter that I wouldn't interrupt or
`didn't want her to. But I will say that --
` Petitioner, am I correct that you submitted 99
`demonstrative slides for this case?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Yes, your Honor,
`we --
`
`9
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Please. For a 30-minute oral
`argument; is that correct?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: So that gives you, what, less
`than 20 seconds per slide to be able to get through
`them all? Am I right on that?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Your Honor, we don't
`intend to get through them all. We included them
`because of the kind of scatter shot challenges that
`we've received on these claims and so we want to be
`prepared to respond to any questions that the board
`may have with a visual recognizing that the time is
`short. And also --
` JUDGE ARPIN: Petitioner, let me speak
`again, please. So it's possible that, and probably
`likely, that a large number of these slides will not
`be presented during the oral argument; is that
`correct?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: And since these slides are
`not evidence and they are not part of the record,
`Patent Owner, could you also address why it is not
`premature or perhaps even unnecessary at this stage
`to be addressing particular slides.
` MS. ARNER: Yes, back to me, the patent
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`10
`
`owner, right?
` JUDGE ARPIN: Yes, it is. Thank you.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. It may well be
`premature. One of the things that we wanted to ask
`the board was whether and how we should note specific
`objections because, as you said, we understand that
`the demonstratives are not evidence. They are not
`entered into the record for the board's order. And
`really what our objection is -- would be is to the
`new arguments that would be raised in the oral
`hearing for the first time, the new specificity being
`added to argument for the first time.
` And so until they make the argument next
`Tuesday, it would not be part of the record, I guess,
`and so we could save our objections and raise them
`then. But we wanted to follow the board's procedure
`given that the oral hearing order did set out a
`timeline for whether we should ta k with the board
`about this issue. So we raise it up to you.
` I have some specific slides that I can go
`through if you'd l ke some examples. But, as you
`said, it may be more appropriate to do this on
`Tuesday once we see what actually transpires.
` JUDGE ARPIN: In response to your
`questions, Patent Owner, the way we usually l ke to
`
`11
`
`run the oral arguments is that we do not have the
`parties object during -- or one party object while
`another party is presenting. We do this for a couple
`of reasons. One, it disrupts the presentation and
`tends to extend the proceeding.
` Secondly -- this be may be the more important
`reason -- if an attorney stands up at their counsel
`table and speaks an objection, because of the
`limitations on our microphones and especially when we
`have a remote judge, as we will for these hearings,
`the remote judge frequently cannot hear the
`objection. And so it makes it very difficult to rule
`on it. So what we usually do is objections are
`reserved until the party wishing to make an objection
`gets to speak.
` Now, with these cases the petitioner bears the
`burden. The petitioner will speak first and may
`reserve time. Patent Owner, after Petitioner has
`spoken up to their reserve time amount, will then
`present its case.
` I believe in these three hearings we do not have
`motions to amend, motions for observations, or
`motions to exclude. So the patent owner would
`present their case in chief. So this would be the
`patent owner's opportunity to state an objection 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
`
`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
`
`June 17, 2016
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`12
`any slide that Petitioner may have presented during
`its initial presentation.
` Petitioner would then have its chance to use its
`rebuttal time. And, of course, in this situation
`Patent Owner doesn't have another opportunity to
`speak. If Petitioner raised a slide during its
`rebuttal, and that would be a slide rebutting,
`supposedly, the argument raised by Patent Owner, we
`would afford Patent Owner the opportunity before
`adjournment to state its objection to any additional
`slides produced during the rebuttal period.
` Does that answer your question as to how an
`objection would work at the hearing?
` MS. ARNER: Yes, it does. That's very
`helpful.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. I would -- given
`that we've granted 30 minutes to decide, I'm not sure
`that it would behoove either party to spend a lot of
`that time on objections, but certainly to state them
`for the record is what we would be looking for.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. We will be prepared to
`do that.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Thank you.
` Petitioner, do you understand what I've just
`said about the objection procedure?
`
`13
`
` MR. MILLER: We do, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Patent Owner,
`would you l ke to say anything else then about your
`concerns about the petitioner's slides at this time?
` MS. ARNER: No. I think with the guidance
`that you've just provided, we'll follow the
`procedures that the board prefers and be prepared to
`address our specific objections when -- if and when
`new arguments are raised at the hearing on Tuesday.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you.
` Petitioner, on this first point on Patent
`Owner's objections, is there anything you would l ke
`to say in response to what Patent Owner has just
`said?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Thank you.
`Petitioner, you had raised your own separate
`objections to certain of Patent Owner's slides. And
`if I understand those objections, they are to slides
`21 through 27 which argue that Petitioner presented
`new arguments in its reply.
` Now, before you speak on this point, the board
`has on numerous occasions informed the patent owner
`that they may bring up an argument that new material
`was presented -- or new arguments or evidence were
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`June 17, 2016
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`16
`
`14
`
`presented from the reply during the oral hearing. I
`would draw your attention just as an example to
`IPR2014-00153, paper 18, page 3, you can look at that
`at your convenience.
` But as I said, this is something that we have
`allowed patent owners, if they wish, to spend time
`during the oral hearing to raise these points to
`make. I would also point out that, you know, the
`federal circuit has given certain guidance regarding
`the introduction of new evidence during the trial and
`that -- the most recent example would probably be the
`Genzyme decision just this week.
` And with regard to raising new arguments or
`evidence at the oral argument, our trial practice
`guide makes clear that that's proh bited. And the
`federal circuit has instructed the board on the
`problems with reliance on such new arguments raised
`or new evidence presented at the oral hearing in the
`Dell decision.
` So with that preface, I'm going to allow
`Petitioner to speak to their objections to slides 21
`through 27.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Thank you, your
`Honor. I think the issue with our objections here is
`that it was unclear whether or not Patent Owner is
`
`15
`
`truly claiming that there is new evidence presented
`on reply that should have been addressed or a motion
`exclude. For example, if you look at slide 23 --
` JUDGE ARPIN: Before we look at particular
`slides, I point out the same comment that I had made
`earlier to Patent Owner, that none of these slides
`have been presented yet; and, in fact, they are not
`evidence and they are not part of the record. So
`before you go into particular slides, could you
`please address whether this issue isn't premature at
`this time.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Your Honor, I -- I
`agree with you that this would have the same approach
`as the other matter. The concern was if there is a
`claim that we presented new evidence on reply, there
`was a time in the procedural schedule to bring such a
`motion so that we could respond to it, whereas having
`put these types of claims in these demonstratives for
`the first time, we did not have an opportunity to
`respond to it. If they're not making a claim for new
`evidence under the rules, then we can address this
`exactly the same way as other objections to
`demonstratives.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Are you ta king about a
`motion to exclude?
`
`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
`
`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
`
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Go ahead.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: You know, our concern
`was if they believe there truly was new evidence in
`the reply as opposed to new argument that they should
`have brought a motion to exclude that we could
`respond to and resolve before he hearing.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Well, I believe that the
`board has also said on numerous occasions that new
`evidence is not necessarily the subject of a motion
`to exclude.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Okay.
` JUDGE ARPIN: And also, our -- the
`determination of whether new evidence has been
`presented in a reply, I believe that the board has
`also said in the past on various occasions that that
`is something for the board to decide and that if we
`decide that there is new evidence that has been
`presented improperly in a reply -- when I say
`"improperly," I mean not properly in response to
`argument or evidence presented in the patent owner's
`response -- that the board is capable of making that
`determination.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Are you familiar with those
`
`17
`
`decisions?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: We agree with that,
`your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Okay. With that, is there
`anything we need to discuss about these -- these
`non-record, not yet presented slides at this point?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Patent Owner, is there
`anything that you would like to say in response to
`what Petitioner has just said?
` MS. ARNER: No, your Honor, I don't have
`anything to add beyond what was said.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Is there anything
`else that either party would like to add at this time
`before I put you on mute for a few minutes to consult
`with my colleague? Patent Owner?
` MS. ARNER: Nothing from us.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Petitioner?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Nothing from us, your
`Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. If you'll indulge
`us for a few moments, we'll confer on this issue.
` (Pause in the proceedings.)
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counsel, panel is back on the
`line. At this point because these slides are not
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 14
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`June 17, 2016
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`20
`
`18
`evidence, because they are not in the record, and
`because they may not even be presented during the
`oral hearing, and in addition, because we have
`discussed here -- and, of course, we will remind the
`parties on the day of the oral hearing of our
`objection procedures -- I don't see the need at this
`point to make a ruling on a particular slide.
` I think we have advised the parties, both in our
`oral hearing order and in the various cases that
`we've identified, of the issues that surround the
`questions that you have presented to us today. But I
`see no need at this time to make a ruling on any
`particular slide.
` With that said, I'll ask the parties one more
`time whether there's anything they would like to say
`to us before we adjourn. Petitioner?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Patent Owner?
` MS. ARNER: Not at this time. Thank you.
` JUDGE ARPIN: And I will ask my colleague
`whether there's anything else that he would like to
`add at this time. I see there's nothing from him.
` There is one thing that I would like to point
`out just as a practical matter. We're doing three
`hearings on Tuesday and the timing for those will be
`
`19
`
`relatively tight especially since we're going to take
`a break between and third hearing for lunch.
` I will advise the parties that there is a cafe
`in the -- in the -- Byron Rogers building where the
`hearings will be conducted in Denver, and that --
`they may eat at that cafe at lunch and not have to
`leave the building and go through security.
` This is a federal building. We have other
`federal agencies here and many of those agencies, in
`particular the immigration courts, have hearings on
`Tuesdays. So it may be something that the parties or
`the counsel who will especially be arguing during the
`after lunch hearing may want to consider eating in
`the building rather than going outside to find a
`place to eat. Just a suggestion on the panel's part
`for your benefit.
` MR. MILLER: Your Honor, may I ask a
`question regarding security. Is there any
`restriction on bringing electronic devices into the
`building?
` JUDGE ARPIN: There will not be a
`restriction on that. You will have to enter through
`the public security queue, and it will be necessary
`for your electronic equipment to go through an X-ray
`machine, if that's a problem.
`
`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
`
`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
`
` You will need to have a picture I.D. to show to
`the security when you enter the building. But beyond
`that, there should not be any problems. Obviously,
`no sharp objects, that sort of thing. That is
`standard for any government building.
` MR. MILLER: One other question. In view
`of the immigration hearings, should we expect a line
`at security?
` JUDGE ARPIN: There can be. I don't know
`exactly -- since we're in summer, it tends to be a
`little bit less, but it certainly would be prudent,
`and that's one of the reasons why we're beginning the
`hearings at ten rather than nine, to give a little
`bit more time so that there shouldn't be any
`difficulty with parties passing through security and
`getting through to our floor.
` MR. MILLER: That's helpful. Thank you.
` JUDGE MC KONE: This is Judge McKone. I do
`have one sort of thing to add. I noted that at least
`one of the parties requested a document camera for
`use in the hearing. I want to remind the parties
`that I would be attending remotely, that I will not
`be able to see what gets put on the document camera.
` So what I will have access to is the parties'
`slides electronically numbered as -- as you've
`
`21
`
`e-mailed them to us today. So if you renumber the
`slides, that could be problematic. In a recent
`hearing I've had that happen and it was problematic.
` So just to make you aware of what I will be able
`to follow, I think per the document camera, it will
`be difficult for me to consider those arguments
`because I will not be able to see what you're doing.
`I want to remind the parties as they're preparing
`their presentations.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Thank you, Judge
`McKone. This does raise one additional topic, which
`is one of the slides that the patent owner objected
`to our use of the figure on. This was slide 68. We
`agreed to remove the figure from that slide.
` Is it permiss ble for us to submit new slides
`that remove that figure per the agreement of the
`parties?
` JUDGE ARPIN: I think that would be fine
`for you to do that, if is this the petitioner
`speaking.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Yes, your Honor,
`Melody Drummond Hansen.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Okay. Petitioner, I would
`though ask -- you sent your slides in a form through
`a secure e-mail system. We usually don't get them
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 14
`
`

`
`June 17, 2016
`7 (Pages 22 to 24)
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
` I, Carrie LaMontagne, Certified Shor hand
`Reporter within and for the States of California and
`Oklahoma, do hereby certify that during the hearing
`held telephonically before the Patent Trial and
`Appeals Board, that said proceeding was recorded in
`stenotype notes by me on June 17, 2016, commencing at
`1:00 p.m., and ending at 1:30 p.m., and was
`thereafter reduced to typewritten form under my
`supervision; that the foregoing pages constitute a
`true and accurate record of the said proceeding.
` I further cer ify hat present on behalf of
`Petitioners, APPLE INC., were MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN,
`ESQ., and MARK MILLER, ESQ., of O’MELVENY & MYERS
`LLP; present on behalf of OPENTV, INC., were ERIKA
`ARNER, ESQ., and CORY BELL, ESQ., of FINNEGAN,
`HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP.
` I further certify that I am not related to, nor
`associated wi h any of the par ies or their
`attorneys, nor do I have any disqualifying interest,
`personal or financial, in the actions wi hin.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
`hand and official seal this 20th day of June 2016.
`
`____________________________
`
`Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`22
`
`that way. We usually just get the slides sent to us
`to Trials via e-mail as PDFs or a PowerPoint. So if
`you do resubmit them, please don't submit them adding
`the extra security layer because that requires us to
`have Trials open them up and then send them to us.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Understood, your
`Honor. I think they got kicked for being too large.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Okay.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: We'll find a solution
`that allows us to send them to you by e-mail
`regardless.
` JUDGE ARPIN: And if you have a problem
`submitting them, please contact Trials by phone and
`discuss with them how best to submit them.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Thank you, your
`Honor.
` JUDGE ARPIN: With that, does either party
`have anything else that they would l ke to add at
`this time?
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Nothing from the
`Petitioner.
` MS. ARNER: Nothing from the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Judge McKone, do you have
`anything you would l ke to add at this time?
` JUDGE MC KONE: Nothing further. Thank
`
`23
`
`you.
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much. We are
`looking forward to seeing you all on Tuesday, and
`this should be a very interesting, though a very busy
`day, and we're looking forward to hearing your
`arguments on the cases.
` And with that, we are adjourned.
` MS. DRUMMOND HANSEN: Thank you.
` MR. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor.
` (Proceedings adjourned at 1:30 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
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`
`
`
`Conference CallConference Call
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01031Case IPR2015-01031
`
`June 17, 2016June 17, 2016
`
`1
`
`A
`able 9:5 20:23
`21:4,7
`access 20:24
`accurate 24:11
`actions 24:21
`add 17:12,14
`18:22 20:19
`22:18,24
`added 10:12
`adding 22:3
`addition 18:3
`additional
`12:10 21:11
`address 5:8,25
`9:22 13:8
`15:10,21
`addressed
`15:2
`addressing
`9:24
`adjourn 18:16
`adjourned
`23:7,10
`adjournment
`12:10
`administrati...
`7:6
`advise 19:3
`advised 18:8
`afford 12:9
`afternoon 3:1
`agencies 19:9
`19:9
`ago 6:12
`agree 15:13
`17:2
`agreed 21:14
`agreement
`21:16
`ahead 16:2
`aids 6:22
`allow 14:20
`
`allowed 14:6
`allows 22:10
`amend 11:22
`amount 11:19
`announced
`3:18
`answer 12:12
`anybody 3:13
`apologize 3:23
`APPEAL 1:2
`1:17
`Appeals 24:6
`appearance
`4:12
`APPEARAN...
`2:1
`Apple 1:5 3:3
`24:13
`appreciate
`5:10,24
`approach
`15:13
`appropriate
`10:22
`argue 13:20
`arguing 3:9
`19:12
`argument 6:22
`9:2,17 10:12
`10:13 12:8
`13:24 14:14
`16:5,21
`arguments
`6:24 7:22 8:3
`8:5,7 10:10
`11:1 13:9,21
`13:25 14:13
`14:17 21:6
`23:6
`Arner 2:3 3:15
`3:16,20,22
`4:4,5,10,14
`4:18,24 5:21
`
`6:10 7:16
`9:25 10:3
`12:14,21
`13:5 17:11
`17:17 18:19
`22:22 24:16
`Arpin 1:18 3:1
`3:2,11,17,17
`4:3,8,13,19
`4:22 5:3,7,22
`6:9,11 8:18
`9:1,4,14,20
`10:2,24
`12:16,23
`13:2,10,16
`15:4,24 16:2
`16:8,13,25
`17:4,8,13,18
`17:21,24
`18:18,20
`19:21 20:9
`21:18,23
`22:8,12,17
`22:23 23:2
`associate 4:11
`associated
`24:19
`assume 5:23
`attending
`20:22
`attention 14:2
`attorney 4:8
`11:7
`attorneys 4:23
`24:20
`augmentation
`8:3
`authorization
`6:20
`avoid 8:9
`aware 21:4
`B
`
`B 1:18
`B2 1:14
`back 9:25
`17:24
`basis 7:14
`bears 7:23
`11:16
`beginning
`20:12
`behalf 4:6 7:17
`24:12,15
`behoove 12:18
`believe 11:21
`16:4,8,15
`Bell 2:3 4:6,8
`4:16 24:16
`benefit 4:24
`5:12 19:16
`best 22:14
`beyond 17:12
`20:2
`bit 20:11,14
`board 1:2,17
`4:12 5:18 7:3
`8:13 9:11
`10:5,18 13:7
`13:22 14:16
`16:9,15,17
`16:22 24:6
`board's 10:8
`10:16
`break 19:2
`bring 13:24
`15:16
`bringing 19:19
`brought 16:6
`building 19:4
`19:7,8,14,20
`20:2,5
`burden 7:23
`11:17
`busy 23:4
`Byron 19:4
`
`C
`
`C 1:19
`cafe 19:3,6
`California 2:10
`24:3
`call 3:2,3,4,5,6
`3:12,18,19
`4:4,20 5:4,14
`5:18 6:12,15
`7:14
`called 8:14
`camera 20:20
`20:23 21:5
`capable 16:22
`Carrie 1:25
`24:2
`case 1:14 4:9
`4:11 7:24
`8:23 11:20
`11:24
`cases 11:16
`18:9 23:6
`Center 2:9
`certain 13:18
`14:9
`certainly 8:4
`12:19 20:11
`CERTIFICATE
`24:1
`Certified 24:2
`certify 24:4,12
`24:18
`challenges 9:9
`chance 12:3
`chief 11:24
`circuit 14:9,16
`claim 15:15,20
`claiming 15:1
`claims 9:10
`15:18
`clear 14:15
`colleague 4:5
`17:16 18:20
`
`
`
`202-220-4158202-220-4158
`
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.comwww.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 14
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`Case IPR2015-01031
`
`June 17, 2016
`2
`
`commencing
`24:7
`comment 15:5
`concern 15:14
`16:3
`concerns 13:4
`conducted
`19:5
`confer 17:22
`conference
`1:16 5:11
`confine 7:4
`consider
`19:13 21:6
`constitute
`24:10
`consult 17:15
`contact 22:13
`continued 8:2
`continues
`7:21
`continuing
`7:19
`convenience
`14:4
`copies 7:7,9
`copy 5:24
`correct 5:5
`8:22 9:2,18
`Cory 2:3 4:6,8
`4:16 24:16
`Cory's 4:10
`counsel 3:22
`4:15 5:3,11
`11:7 17:24
`19:12
`couple 3:16
`8:14,15 11:3
`course 6:3
`12:4 18:4
`court 5:4,8,12
`5:15,19 7:8
`8:20
`
`courts 19:10
`CSR 1:25
`D
`DAVID 1:19
`day 7:9 18:5
`23:5 24:23
`decide 12:17
`16:17,18
`decision 14:12
`14:19
`decisions 17:1
`Dell 14:19
`demonstrative
`6:20,21,23
`8:23
`demonstrati...
`6:16 7:1,4,8
`7:10 8:16
`10:7 15:18
`15:23
`Denver 19:5
`determination
`16:14,23
`develop 7:22
`development
`8:2
`devices 19:19
`dialed 3:23
`difficult 11:12
`21:6
`difficulty
`20:15
`directed 6:15
`discuss 17:5
`22:14
`discussed
`18:4
`disqualifying
`24:20
`disrupts 11:4
`document
`20:20,23
`
`21:5
`doing 18:24
`21:7
`draw 14:2
`Drive 2:4
`Drummond
`2:8 3:9 4:21
`5:2 6:8 8:24
`9:3,7,19
`13:15 14:23
`15:12 16:1,3
`16:12,24
`17:2,7,19
`18:17 21:10
`21:21,22
`22:6,9,15,20
`23:8 24:13
`DUNNER 2:4
`24:17
`E
`e-mail 21:25
`22:2,10
`e-mailed 21:1
`earlier 3:18
`15:6
`eat 19:6,15
`eating 19:13
`egregious 7:5
`8:14
`either 12:18
`17:14 22:17
`electronic
`19:19,24
`electronically
`20:25
`Embarcadero
`2:9
`enter 19:22
`20:2
`entered 4:12
`10:8
`entire 7:24
`
`entirety 8:10
`equipment
`19:24
`Erika 2:3 3:16
`24:15
`errata 5:25
`especially
`11:9 19:1,12
`ESQ 2:3,3,8,8
`24:14,14,16
`24:16
`evidence 6:21
`6:24,25 7:11
`8:7 9:21 10:7
`13:25 14:10
`14:14,18
`15:1,8,15,21
`16:4,10,14
`16:18,21
`18:1
`exactly 15:22
`20:10
`example 14:2
`14:11 15:3
`examples
`10:21
`exclude 11:23
`15:3,25 16:6
`16:11
`exhibits 6:21
`6:23
`expect 6:25
`20:7
`explain 7:14
`extend 11:5
`extent 5:9
`extra 22:4
`F
`fact 15:7
`familiar 16:25
`FARABOW 2:4
`24:17
`
`federal 14:9,16
`19:8,9
`figure