Date: November 18, 2015
`
`Case: Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`Phone: 202-347-3700
`Fax: 202-737-3638
`Email: info@acefederal.com
`Internet: www.acefederal.com
`
`
`Page i
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2038
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Case: Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`Phone: 202-347-3700
`Fax: 202-737-3638
`Email: info@acefederal.com
`Internet: www.acefederal.com
`
`
`Page i
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2038
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _________________________
` APPLE, INC.
` Petitioner,
` Vs.
` VIRNETX INC.
` Patent Owner
`
` Case IPR2015-01046
` IPR2016-00062
` IPR2016-00063
` Patent No. 6,502,135
` And
` Case IPR2015-01047
` Patent No. 7,490,151
`
` Oral Argument on Proposed Motions of Apple, Inc.
` November 18, 2015 (10:01 a.m.)
`Before: HON. STEPHEN SIU
` HON. KARL D. EASTHOM
` HON. MICHAEL TIERNEY
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`APPEARANCES:
` JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQ.
` NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
` DANIEL ZEILBERGER, ESQ.
` Paul Hastings LLP
` 875 15th Street, Northwest
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.551.1996 FAX: 202.551.0496
` Josephpalys@paulhastings.com
` On behalf of VirnetX Inc.
`
` ABRAHAM KASDAN, ESQ.
` Wiggin and Dana LLP
` 450 Lexington Avenue
` New York, NY 10017
` Akasdan@wiggin.com
` And
` JAMES T. BAILEY
` 504 W. 136th St. #1B
` New York, NY 10031
` Jtb@baileylaw.com
` On behalf of Petitioner in IPR2015-01047
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`Page 3
`
` JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQ.
` THOMAS A. BROUGHAN, III
` Sidley Austin LLP
` 1501 K Street, Northwest
` Washington, DC 20005
` Jkushan@sidley.com
` On behalf of Petitioner Apple
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` HON. TIERNEY: This is Judge Tierney. I'm
`going to wait just a moment until we get Judges Siu
`and Easthom on the line, so please hold.
` HON. SIU: This is Judge Siu joining the
`call, S-I-U.
` HON. TIERNEY: Is Judge Easthom on the
`line?
` HON. EASTHOM: Yes, good morning,
`everyone.
` HON. TIERNEY: Thank you for joining us,
`Judge Easthom.
` All right, we have the judges, we are
`going to begin.
` Do we have the counsel for the Petitioner?
` MR. KUSHAN: Yes. Good morning, Your
`Honor. This is Jeff Kushan for Apple. And with me
`is Tom Broughan.
` HON. TIERNEY: Welcome to the call.
` Do we have counsel for the Patent Owner
`today?
` MR. PALYS: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 4 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Joseph Palys. I'm joined with Naveen Modi and Dan
`Zeilberger.
` HON. TIERNEY: Was there any other party
`that was joining us today by invite of the parties?
` MR. BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor. This is Jim
`Bailey. I'm counsel for the original petitioner,
`Mangrove Partners Master Fund.
` MR. KASDAN: Your Honor, this is Abe
`Kasdan, also for Petitioner.
` HON. TIERNEY: Welcome to the call.
` Court Reporter, and you are here at the
`behest of whom.
` COURT REPORTER: Let me see who has
`requested me.
` MR. PALYS: Your Honor, this Joseph Palys.
`We had sent an e-mail recently, albeit a little
`probably short, but to notify the Board that we had
`a court reporter on the call. And it was my
`intention to let you know as soon as we started to
`let you know, but we managed to not do that.
` COURT REPORTER: Looks like it's Paul
`Hastings that called us, Judge.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` HON. TIERNEY: I would just like to state
`for the Patent Owner then, if possible then once you
`get a copy of the transcript if you could submit it
`as an exhibit.
` MR. PALYS: Yes, sir. That's our intent.
` HON. TIERNEY: Thank you.
` All right. My understanding is that the
`Petitioner in this case would be Apple has requested
`the conference call. The cases that we are talking
`about today, there's four IPRs is my understanding,
`IPR2015-01046 and -01047, as well as the recently
`filed IPR2016 IPRs which would be IPR2016-00062 and
`00063.
` So with that I'm going to turn it to
`Petitioner which would be in this case Apple for the
`IPR2016 cases and they requested the call, and
`please inform us as to the purpose of the call
`today.
` MR. KUSHAN: Yes, Your Honor, the purpose
`of the call because we had filed a Motion for
`Joinder seeking to join our petitions to the
`petitions that have been instituted, and we wanted
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`to bring the joinder motion to the attention of the
`Board for two reasons, one, in our joinder motion we
`have indicated that we are prepared to, as many
`parties have done in similar situations, adhere to
`the existing schedule of the petition that has been
`instituted, and, second, to confirm that we're not
`seeking any additional variations from the schedule
`that has been set.
` And given those types of parameters and
`the fact that the proceeding has already been
`instituted and is already moving on its schedule, we
`were hoping to bring the joinder motion to the
`attention of the panel so that it may be considered
`promptly so that we may be able to join the
`proceeding and not disrupt it in any fashion.
` The purpose of the call was to bring that
`to your attention and also to hopefully address any
`questions you've got regarding the joinder motion.
` HON. TIERNEY: I'm going to turn it over
`to Patent Owners to see if they have any comments or
`have any questions for the parties. Patent Owner,
`do you have any comments you would like to make
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`before we start asking questions today?
` MR. PALYS: This is Joseph Palys.
` Just to note, Your Honor, that it is our
`intention to file an opposition to the Motion to
`Joinder to the extent we needed authority to do that
`we are seeking that. And then another point on the
`due date for that opposition, our understanding is
`that the opposition would be due one month from the
`filing of that motion which was 10/26, October 26,
`unfortunately that happens to fall on Thanksgiving,
`and we know, I believe the field may be open on the
`following Friday and we were going to ask if it
`would be okay for the Board to extend that to the
`following Monday.
` HON. TIERNEY: That does lead us into a
`couple of questions here, and I appreciate your
`pointing that out. For scheduling purposes would
`the Patent Owner expect to file a Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response in these two cases, the 2016
`cases?
` MR. PALYS: Yes, we do, Your Honor.
` HON. TIERNEY: All right. And what
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 8 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`schedules do we set for the Preliminary Patent Owner
`Responses?
` MR. PALYS: We would like to maintain the
`normal schedule which is a three-month time period.
` HON. TIERNEY: How would that affect a
`potential joinder?
` MR. PALYS: I'm not sure I follow your
`question, I apologize.
` HON. TIERNEY: Okay, the point being right
`now I guess the day recorded or rather the notice of
`the date of recording was sent out I believe
`November 4th in these cases. My apologies, the case
`hasn't been docketed on my electronic system so I
`have to the public portal for this information. If
`it's November 4th that's going to put up to three
`months for you to file your preliminary response and
`then up to three months for us to decide whether to
`institute it or not. Potentially we're looking at
`five and a half more months for the added time; how
`is that going to impact if we go to that full
`schedule, how is that going to impact the joinder
`with the 2015 proceedings which have already been
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`instituted?
` MR. PALYS: Thank you for the
`clarification, Your Honor. I think from VirnetX's
`standpoint we don't think Apple should be joined,
`that's why we are going to be filing an opposition.
`So in terms of how it will affect the joinder,
`that's from our view where we stand, but in terms of
`the schedule why we believe that we should be
`getting at least the three months to file our
`preliminary responses because the normal schedule
`are for several reasons; one, we will need time as
`we do with all responses to a petition to consider
`the arguments and the positions that were raised in
`Apple's petition. In some instances there is
`actually some new evidence and new arguments that
`Apple has raised in these 62 and 63 matters.
` And a second and important reason is our
`schedule just really did not allow for any room on
`it for than a expedited schedule on these
`proceedings. I can list out and I will list out
`just VirnetX's deadlines alone that we are dealing
`with that are going to extend through the end of
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`January, somewhat into February that require
`significant work.
` Just to list a few of these, Your Honor,
`is there are some IPR proceedings, IPR2014-00237 and
`238 that his honor might be aware of, those are up
`at the Fifth Circuit, those briefs are due, right
`now it is our understanding is around the 19th or
`the 25th or within the next week or two.
` We have re-examination matters, 95001697
`and 001714, we have comments after an action closing
`prosecution, those are due on November 23rd. IPR
`matters 2015-810, 811 and 812, we have patent owner
`responses due on December 11th.
` HON. TIERNEY: Well, let's just talk of
`this. If we are to go ahead, we are going to have
`to have these papers filed at some point anyway,
`there's always going to be some VirnetX cases going
`on because those re-exams are going away but those
`Circuit briefs are going to be a additional work and
`IPRs are still going to have additional work, so
`from what I'm gathering there is never going to be a
`good time for patent owner to file a response due.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. PALYS: We understand that, Your
`Honor, but the point of going through the list,
`which, you know, there is a list of over 20 some
`deadlines coming up in the next couple months, is
`that I was just showing that we think it's only fair
`that we get the whole three months to present these
`arguments to consider these arguments and present
`our full response within the three month time frame.
` HON. TIERNEY: But if we were go too much
`on that we'd have the same call, wouldn't there be
`another list of 20 different things that were due?
` MR. PALYS: Your Honor, obviously every
`other practitioner we have other matters as well,
`but, you know, really having -- putting VirnetX in a
`position to excise its schedule to accommodate
`Apple seems to be --
` HON. TIERNEY: No, it's not just to
`accommodate Apple, it's to resolve the issues that
`are opposed.
` MR. KUSHAN: Your Honor, if I may, may I
`make a couple comments?
` HON. TIERNEY: For the court reporter's
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`sake could you identify yourself?
` MR. KUSHAN: Yes, first, this is Jeff
`Kushan.
` HON. TIERNEY: Thank you.
` MR. KUSHAN: I, as opposing counsel has
`entered these proceedings I certainly understand and
`sympathize with the volume of activities in front of
`us, I'm actually in a trial right now in Texas, and
`it's even more important to do this call because I
`consider it to be very important, and one of the
`things I wanted to flag was that we're not raising
`any new grounds in the petitions we filed, we have
`provided additional, Apple additional lists of
`evidence, but those are in our view the same kind of
`things you would normally encounter in supplemental
`evidence coming in after the institution of a
`proceeding.
` I guess my bigger question is, since the
`positions are actually identical as to the grounds
`that have already been instituted I'm not clear what
`issue would be addressed by VirnetX in their
`preliminary response. If there is an issue that
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`they want to raise which is unique to Apple maybe
`that's something which is better done in opposition
`to the joinder motion, and we are open to discussing
`an opportunity to accommodate that briefing.
` We would certainly, if there is an
`opposition granted would prefer to have at least an
`opportunity for a short reply, if there are any new
`issue that came up in that. But we feel if it's
`possible to do and accommodate VirnetX's desire to
`address Apple-specific issues, we do that in this
`briefing relating to the joinder motion, and we do
`that in a fashion that will not disrupt the existing
`schedule of the instituted proceedings.
` HON. TIERNEY: I'm going to point out, I'm
`amenable to setting a date for preliminary patent
`owner response that is commensurate with the same
`date to accommodate motion for joinder of
`opposition. So I'm willing to give, but I'm
`contemplating at this point, and I'm going to turn
`to my panel members in the moment, would be to
`possibly extend the date for having an opposition to
`the joinder, but at the same time I shorten the time
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`for the Preliminary Patent Owner Response. So they
`would fall on the same date, so you get more time
`for one and less time for the other.
` Now, I do want to, a point I just want to
`raise, is I've pulled up in the petition for the
`IPR2016, I guess it's 62, let me just get my numbers
`straight here going back. I see 20 different things
`in my system, it was numbered, yes, 00062. I've
`also opened the IPR2015-01046. I'm just looking at
`the table of contents, and it looks like the
`arguments that are raised, at least in the table of
`contents, appear to be identical in the two cases.
` I would like VirnetX to address what
`different arguments that were raised that are going
`to be some new time to respond to.
` MR. PALYS: Sure, Your Honor, this is
`Joseph Palys, I will respond to your question and
`then I'd like to comment on what his honor mentioned
`in terms of opposition and the preliminary response.
` HON. TIERNEY: I think I would appreciate
`that.
` MR. PALYS: Yes, thank you.
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 15 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Regarding your last question, Apple
`introduced new evidence in its 62 and 63 matters,
`those involve exhibits 1026 through 1030, and they
`are geared for the public availability positions
`regarding certain references, and they actually
`introduce arguments pertaining to that additional
`evidence for its availability in its petition, on
`pages 39 through 42 of the 62 matter and page 54
`through 59 of the 63 matter.
` HON. TIERNEY: Okay. For the 62 I'm
`looking through the file right now; what pages did
`you identify?
` MR. PALYS: My notes here say pages 39
`through 42.
` HON. TIERNEY: Thank you. I have it open
`right now. Is there anything you would like me to
`look at in particular on those pages?
` MR. PALYS: Your Honor, I actually don't
`have a copy in front of me.
` HON. TIERNEY: Not a problem. Okay, I
`have it noted.
` So I'm hearing that there are several
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 16 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`cases of argument and a couple of additional
`exhibits. And you were going to explain your
`position as to the going on a proposal to extend the
`time for the joinder opposition, but decreasing the
`time for including patent owner's response.
` MR. PALYS: Yes, Your Honor. Just a final
`comment on the last discussion, what we point out
`are examples as far as we know, I mean we are still
`going through the petitions as well so the court or
`the board would appreciates that.
` Now -- I'm sorry?
` HON. TIERNEY: Is there some way we can
`make it easier for you at identifying differences?
` MR. PALYS: I'm not sure, Your Honor, what
`you are suggesting.
` HON. TIERNEY: Well, I'm just throwing
`out, if you are worried about catching the
`differences, do wish is to try and ask Apple? We
`have them on the line, if they would be able to
`point out the differences.
` MR. PALYS: Your Honor, I would prefer not
`to do that on the fly, I'd like to think through and
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 17 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`review the petitions at our own --
` HON. TIERNEY: All right, I was just
`seeing if there was something we could do to help
`you out.
` MR. PALYS: Okay, so regarding the other
`issue, regarding I believe what the Board was
`suggesting merging the opposition with the
`preliminary response, and somehow finding a date to
`do that, we would like to just point out, if the
`Board is inclined to expedite this schedule for the
`preliminary response and allow Apple to join, we
`believe it would be fair instead of expediting and
`prejudicing VirnetX in this case, we do think the
`fair thing to do here would be really to extend the
`schedule. There's tools available in the statute to
`do that, you know, the Board can extend schedules
`six months, and even in terms of for joinder,
`there's tools for the Board to allow for an
`extension here. And if the inclination here is to
`allow Apple to join the party, so to speak --
` HON. TIERNEY: Well, let's stop there. I
`think for the record we ought to point out we want
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 18 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`to find out, you know, we haven't addressed here
`whether or not they should be joined. So we are not
`inclined one way or the other, we just want to make
`sure we pick up the issue in a timely fashion.
` And I'd rather not delay the resolution of
`the issue whether they should or should not be
`joined, to the point where a joinder would be
`prejudiced if it went forward because it's such a
`delay in resolving the issue, that's all we are
`trying to say, we are not inclined one way or the
`other.
` MR. PALYS: I appreciate that, Your Honor,
`you know, there is just other issues beyond even
`the, what Apple is raising in its petitions, I mean
`VirnetX is considering discovery of Mangrove and we
`were going to address this at the proper time once
`we have a chance to meet and confer with Mangrove's
`counsel as well.
` So there are other things in play here
`that we were thinking in terms of how VirnetX is
`going to respond to the Mangrove proceedings, and
`the issues now that are being brought up from
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 19 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Apple's joinder in its petition.
` MR. KUSHAN: Your Honor, this is Jeff
`Kushan again, just very briefly, and I don't want to
`belabor the point, but the schedule that's already
`instituted is one where if we, and I think we are
`very supportive of your trying to accommodate the
`briefing as you proposed, because the schedule that
`from the current proceedings has a Patent Owner
`Response date I believe in January, and if we drift
`too far past the end of November it's kind of a moot
`issue, it's effectively denying our joinder motion
`by consequence of just the schedule will be pushed
`out past the time when this proceeding really would
`be relevant.
` And so I do appreciate the effort to try
`to find a compromise to get the other, you know, the
`patent owner a chance to file their opposition to
`the joinder motion.
` The other issue I just want to flag is we
`read, there was apparently a conference call with
`the Mangrove Petitioner and the Patent Owner a
`couple weeks ago. We looked at that transcript and
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 20 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 21
`there was a suggestion in there regarding some kind
`of a connection between Apple and Mangrove, and we
`were concerned about that because we are not aware
`of any such connection, and if that's the topic of,
`that would be addressed by VirnetX. You know, I
`think that speaks also to the need to get that
`joinder opposition put on the table quickly so we
`can deal with that.
` We are not raising it of course because
`there's nothing there in our view, but we were
`concerned that that had been alleged, and it is a
`bit of a concern for us hearing that, and having
`this uncertainty around the overall scheduling.
` So we would support your proposal for
`getting that joinder opposition set at a timely
`date.
` HON. TIERNEY: I want to turn back to
`VirnetX. I'm going to confer with my panel in a
`moment as to whether or not one we should go ahead
`and put the date for Opposition to the Joinder and
`the Preliminary Patent Owner Response on the same
`schedule. What I would like to do though is when I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 21 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`confer with my panel, with VirnetX is there a date
`that would be less prejudicial than others?
`Obviously you have mentioned Thanksgiving is a bad
`date, if we want to extend it beyond Thanksgiving
`for the Opposition for Joinder; but is there a date
`which would be less burdensome to you for having the
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response scheduled,
`something that's shorter than the currently
`scheduled date?
` MR. PALYS: Yes, Your Honor this is Joseph
`Palys, if you don't mind I can confer with my
`co-counsel?
` HON. TIERNEY: Yes.
` MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, in the meantime,
`this is Jill Bailey for Mangrove Partners Master
`Fund. I just want to go on the record on Mr. Palys'
`suggested delaying the schedule on my IPRs. Of
`course we would oppose that, and quite frankly, you
`asked about the new evidence, and as I see it Apple
`put in a couple more exhibits regarding the public
`availability of RFCs, so I relied in obviousness
`arguments on certain RFCs in my petitions, VirnetX
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 22 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`opposed them as a not being true prior art. You've
`looked at the evidence I had presented and found
`that those RFCs were more likely than not prior art,
`and Apple has simply piled on with more evidence,
`and quite frankly, Mr. Palys listed a whole bunch of
`other proceedings that VirnetX is involved in, and
`quite frankly, in almost every one of them there is
`one or more RFCs, Request for Comments from the IETF
`that are being used as priorities, because pretty
`much everybody in the industry knows that these
`things are available on the Internet as are the
`date on their face.
` HON. TIERNEY: Your comment's noted.
` Is there anything that the Board needs to
`do at this point, though? All right.
` MR. PALYS: Was that question of me, Your
`Honor?
` HON. TIERNEY: It is of anybody at this
`issue, is there anything that the Board needs to do
`at this moment?
` MR. KUSHAN: Your Honor, this is Jeff
`Kushan, I don't think so. I think, I mean I assume
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 23 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`patent owner has an opportunity to address this
`evidence in their Patent Owner Response. If we were
`to be joined to the proceeding that would be the
`natural course. They could also introduce contrary
`evidence. I mean it's just, it's not changing any
`issue that has been the subject of the grounds that
`are instituted, and I don't think there is a big
`issue with the ability of the patent owner to
`respond to the evidence we put in.
` HON. TIERNEY: It's not an issue we have
`to resolve today.
` MR. KUSHAN: No, definitely not.
` HON. TIERNEY: Thank you.
` MR. PALYS: That I agree with, Your Honor.
`This is Joe Palys.
` HON. TIERNEY: All right. Then while we
`are waiting for the patent owner, is it possible
`or is it feasible to have an opportunity for a reply
`if an opposition is granted? I know that's
`something that I've seen the Board go different ways
`in allowing the reply or not allowing a reply; is
`that something you would be considering here as an
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 24 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 25
`option for us, or Apple in opposition to the joinder
`motion if authorized?
` HON. TIERNEY: I would say before I'm
`going to consult my colleagues, but I'm inclined to
`grant opposition, so I need file, you know, to have
`the opportunity to file one. As far as the reply,
`that's something I want to confer with my colleagues
`if you want to authorize it today, or if you want to
`wait and see, I take it your comment is indicating
`is you would rather have us to decide that issue
`today as to whether for a reply?
` MR. KUSHAN: If it's possible, Your Honor,
`if you could do that. I have a conference in
`December as well, I think we have an oral hearing
`on, believe it or not, on an interference that was
`agreed to in mid-December.
` So just having some certainty about the
`date of the reply would be helpful for our
`scheduling as well.
` HON. TIERNEY: Okay.
` MR. PALYS: Your Honor, Joseph Palys.
` I'm sorry we were trying to confer and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 25 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`there was discussion so we had to listen to the
`arguments at the same time, so that's why it's
`taking so long.
` HON. TIERNEY: Do you needed additional
`time?
` MR. PALYS: No, I think from our
`perspective, and if we understand it, this is where
`the Board is inclined to accommodate Apple with the
`joinder, is that we think that an opposition to the
`joinder motion would be a separate paper, it
`wouldn't be merged in one document with the
`preliminary response, and both of those documents or
`papers would be filed on the same day.
` And then as far as a date, if we're really
`forced to pick a date we are thinking somewhere
`around mid-January would be less prejudicial, if you
`will, if that's even, if it's possible. I mean just
`to point out, too, and I hope the Board appreciates
`that this is a long history here, this isn't just a
`case where a company coming in out of the blue and
`trying to join, I think the board can appreciate
`that Apple has tried to address these patents
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 26 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 27
`before, has done many joinder motions in attempts to
`joined proceedings against VirnetX patents, and
`Apple's emergency, so to speak, shouldn't prejudice
`VirnetX.
` HON. TIERNEY: Okay, just a very brief
`comment, if you will, as to whether or not you have
`any thoughts of the January date, before I confer
`with my colleagues.
` MR. KUSHAN: I believe the January date
`that they may be proposing is after their reply
`date, and Patent Owner Response date, and I'll ask
`my colleague Tom Broughn, what is the date for the
`current Mangrove proceeding?
` MR. BROUGHAN: January 8th.
` MR. KUSHAN: Thank you. I think with that
`kind of schedule in place we should probably find a
`way to resolve the issue of joinder before the
`schedule gets disrupted, so we would support
`something more along the lines of your proposal,
`Judge Tierney, of sometime perhaps after
`Thanksgiving.
` MR. PALYS: Your Honor, this is Joseph
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 27 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Palys.
` If I may, I think hearing this, I mean
`goes to the point that I was trying to make before.
`If, again, if Apple wants to participate in these
`Mangrove proceedings and is concerned about the
`dates of the schedule of the Mangrove proceedings,
`then there should be an extension of that schedule
`to address Mr. Kushan's issues and address our
`issues, I think that leaves both parties concern by
`extending this schedule.
` There are obviously tools in the statute
`to allow for this, and we think this is the type of
`situation that this is where we're going to end up
`with a joinder of Apple with these proceedings, that
`instead of pushing us to respond to something
`shorter, to extend the schedule out and accommodate
`all parties.
` HON. TIERNEY: This is Judge Tierney.
` I understand your position. If we were to
`move the date back for the two Mangrove cases I
`believe the due date is January 8th, how much time
`do you think we should move it back? In other
`
`202-347-3700
`
`Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
`
`866-928-6509
`
`Page 28 of 40
`
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.
`November 18, 2015
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
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
