`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _______________________________
`
` PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` FINJAN ,INC.,
`
` PATENT OWNER.
`
` ___________
`
` Case IPR2015-01979
`
` Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
` ___________
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`380 Interlocken Crescent, suite 900
`
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`
`Orion Armon, Esq.
`
`Counsel for the Petitioner
`
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`
`1177 Ave of the Americas
`
`New York, NY 10036
`
`James Hannah, Esq.
`
`Jeffrey Price, Esq.
`
`Michael Lee, Esq.
`
`Counsel for the Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 3
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JUDGE QUINN: All right. This is Judge Miriam
`
`Quinn again. And with me is Judge Tom Eonetti. I’m going
`
`to take rollcall at this time. Uh, who’s on the line for
`
`Petitioner?
`
` MR. ARMON: Your Honor, it’s Orien Armon, lead
`
`counsel for Petitioner. Um, I do not believe that any of
`
`my colleagues have joined, but if anyone else is on for,
`
`uh, Palo Alto Networks please speak up.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: All right. I don’t hear anybody
`
`so let’s move on. Patent Owner, who do we have, on the
`
`call?
`
` MR. HANNAH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This
`
`is James Hannah for Patent Owner. And with me on the line
`
`is Michael Lee, um, who will be handling, uh, the main
`
`issue, uh, this afternoon.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And I understand there is a
`
`court reporter on the line. Could you identify yourself,
`
`ma’am?
`
` COURT REPORTER: Yes, this is Earlina King with
`
`Alderson.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. all right. So we are
`
`here for IPR 2015 1979. That is a, uh, Palo Alto versus
`
`Finjan. And the call was requested by Patent Owner, at
`
`least the initial one, requested by Patent Owner to
`
`address dispute regarding discovery relevant to real party
`
`interest. At this time I will give Patent Owner the
`
`floor.
`
` MR. LEE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Uh, we
`
`recently tried to take the deposition of Petitioner’s
`
`expert, Dr. Rubin. But during that deposition, counsel
`
`for Petitioner instructed Dr. Rubin not to answer, uh,
`
`when he has asked about information highly relevant to
`
`real party. Particularly Dr. Rubin, uh, -- as an expert
`
`for other companies -- Finjan. When he was asked to
`
`identify his company, counsel, uh, for Petitioner, -- Dr.
`
`Rubin -- confidential. Uh, we believe that counsel is not
`
`entitled to instruct the witness not to answer based on
`
`confidentiality. That is contrary to the -- guidelines.
`
`Um, and Patent Owner is seeking relief from the Court on
`
`additional discovery, uh, regarding -- interest.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So let me get this straight. You
`
`want additional discovery in the form of what?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. LEE: Uh, deposition and a discovery
`
` request.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Deposition of who?
`
` MR. LEE: Dr. Rubin, an additional deposition.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: And -- and discovery request of --
`
`of what? I mean there has to be something more specific
`
`than that.
`
` MR. LEE: Sure. It’s, uh, regarding his
`
`engagements and regarding the -- the other, um, --
`
`engagements that are, um, Dr. Rubin is, uh, involved in.
`
`So it would be -- specifically it would be things like,
`
`uh, like billing records, which is -- which the patent
`
`office has accepted, um, as -- as reasonably performed.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, I’m -- I’m not interested in
`
`what other panel -- I’m interested in what exactly you
`
`are asking about. So you said records that show what,
`
`engagement and -- and his billing record?
`
` MR. LEE: Yeah, his engagements for --
`
`So during the deposition, he said that there are -- there
`
`are -- he was engaged and -- as an expert for -- with
`
`other companies -- but wouldn’t identify what those --
`
` COURT REPORTER: I’m sorry, I can barely hear
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you.
`
` MR. LEE: During his deposition, Dr. Rubin
`
`was -- identified, uh, that he was engaged with other
`
`companies against Finjan. But it’s on counsel’s
`
`instruction not to answer -- identify what those other
`
`companies were. So it’d be asking about -- the discovery
`
`request would be regarding the billing records for Dr.
`
`Rubin with his engagement for Petitioner -- other
`
`companies.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. How is that relevant to the
`
`case?
`
` MR. LEE: -- relevant to the real
`
`party at interest. Uh, we are in possession of -- of
`
`information showing that there’s another real party at
`
`interest that should have been named --. Uh, there’s a
`
`public partnership announcement between, uh, the network
`
`and -- for joint services solution -- public template
`
`regarding the solution that -- where -- property indemnity
`
`that would allow -- control over -- over, uh, Petitioner’s
`
`participation and --. This one -- this information, we
`
`tried to add, uh, Petitioner’s expert -- more information
`
`regarding it --, if he was able to answer more questions
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`about the identity of the companies and dig into whether
`
`-- was one of these companies and his involvement --.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: You don’t have any evidence that
`
`any of these companies were in any way involved at the
`
`time of the filing of the petition, ‘cause whatever’s
`
`happening now is not as relevant as what happened at the
`
`time of the filing of the petition.
`
` MR. LEE: These -- this agreement and the joint,
`
`uh, the partnership but before the petition. This is the,
`
`uh, yeah, this is before the petition. Well, we believe
`
`it is. I mean there’s no actual date, but the -- just the
`
`public template agreement that we found. Uh, but the --
`
`the public partnership announcement between --.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So you already have some
`
`public records of -- of this. And -- and so your request
`
`has nothing to do with that part, right? You just want
`
`the request particular to Dr. Rubin?
`
` MR. LEE: Dr. Rubin and any non-privileged
`
`information, uh, regarding, uh, his counsel’s, uh,
`
`involvement with these other companies ‘cause the -- the
`
`thing that was troubling about the -- the deposition was
`
`when I asked counsel what was his basis for instructing
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Dr. Rubin not to answer, he said that it was -- are
`
`somehow confidential. And that would tell me that somehow
`
`counsel was somehow informed of these confidential
`
`engagements from these other companies.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Is that all you have?
`
` MR. LEE: Uh, yes.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Uh, Petitioner response?
`
` MR. ARMON: Thank you, Your Honor. Three
`
`points. Um, first, the objection stated during Mr., uh,
`
`Dr. Rubin’s deposition was based on Rule -- and this is
`
`federal rule civil procedure -- Rule 26B4D. That rule
`
`states that an undisclosed consulting expert need not be,
`
`um, subject to discovery. And the basis for the objection
`
`and the instructions provided to Dr. Rubin during the
`
`deposition was that to the extent he had not been
`
`disclosed, he should not disclose a confidential
`
`consulting engagement. And again, that’s subject to Rule
`
`26B4D, which does not allow discovery of that type of
`
`consulting arrangement. Um, so that’s point one. Point
`
`two, Your Honor, is that, um, I don’t believe that Patent
`
`Owner has satisfied any of the -- factors that would
`
`warrant additional discovery here, um, particularly in
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`light of the Board’s historical, um, application of, uh, a
`
`test or real party in interest that focuses on either the
`
`ability to control, actual control or funding. Um, a
`
`separate engagement of, uh, between Dr. Rubin and another
`
`company wouldn’t go to the question of whether Palo Alto
`
`Networks was being controlled or -- or whether this IPR --
`
`sorry -- was being controlled, um, by another party or
`
`funded by another party. So I don’ believe that this
`
`discovery is -- is probative of the RPI issue. Um, last
`
`point, Your Honor, is that, um, there weren’t any
`
`questions posed to Dr. Rubin about who was paying him as
`
`an expert in this IPR. Um, and that’s certainly something
`
`that, um, counsel for Patent Owner could have delved into.
`
`And he would have been happy to answer those questions.
`
`Um, but since those questions weren’t posed, I don’t see
`
`that, um, any additional discovery is warranted. Let me
`
`also speak very briefly to the question about, um, what
`
`sounds like a discovery request directed toward my law
`
`firm. Um, this isn’t something that, uh, I believe is
`
`appropriate for the additional reason that counsel’s
`
`offered no evidence, um, as required under the -- factors
`
`test showing that, um, my firm is either being paid or
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`controlled by someone other than the real party in
`
`interest identified in the petition, um, who are the
`
`correct real parties in interest.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So -- so am I to understand
`
`that you have, um, attempted to negotiate some discovery
`
`between you and you’ve -- you understand -- understood
`
`that Patent Owner wants some billing records directed to
`
`your firm?
`
` MR. ARMON: Your Honor, it’s Orien Armond again
`
`for Palo Alto Networks. We did have a meet and confer
`
`call, um, in advance of this call with the Board, um,
`
`during which opposing counsel indicated that, uh, Patent
`
`Owner sought discovery not only in the form of additional
`
`deposition of Dr. Rubin, but also some discovery requests
`
`directed toward my law firm. Um, again, for the reasons I
`
`just mentioned I don’t believe that, uh, they’re even
`
`close to satisfying the, uh, evidentiary standard under
`
`the Garmin factors for that type of additional discovery.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. Um, Patent Owner, do
`
`you have any rebuttal last word?
`
` MR. LEE: Uh, -- does not apply to IPR
`
`and that -- identified during the deposition. Again, the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`-- the rule for satisfying Garmin does not actually
`
`provide actual evidence, the type being sought. It’s very
`
`clear the final -- final rule, uh, changes the -- on April
`
`1st, 2016 -- said very clear. And rather the -- the
`
`standard is reasoning tending to show beyond speculation
`
`that -- the indemnity agreement, the partnership
`
`announcement. We believe that reasoning beyond
`
`speculation that -- could have exercised or exercised
`
`control over Petitioner’s participation. And there have
`
`been other cases, uh, showing that -- as well. And just
`
`to -- from the -- the indemnity agreement that allows --
`
`over the defense and all related settlement negotiations.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Let me see if, uh, my colleague
`
` has
`
`additional questions.
`
` MR. ARMON: Your Honor, it’s Orien Armond. May
`
`I make one other point?
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Uh, yeah, sure.
`
` MR. ARMON: Um, again, for Petitioner. Um,
`
`there is District Court litigation ongoing, Your Honor,
`
`between Finjan and Palo Alto Networks and also other
`
`defendants including Symantec. Um, the rules of civil
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`procedure, uh, come into play because counsel’s question
`
`related to engagement by Dr. Rubin in, uh, these related
`
`litigation proceedings. And, uh, the federal rule for
`
`civil procedure undoubtedly applies with respect to those
`
`proceedings.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Yeah, let’s see. My -- my concern
`
`here is that, um, the instruction not to answer, okay, uh,
`
`based on this, uh, theory of consulting engagement, um, in
`
`addition to, uh, other indicia that there is an
`
`indemnification or ammonification agreement, not exactly
`
`that the conditions have arisen such that the
`
`indemnification is in place. Um, but on the other hand,
`
`um, many parties may engage the same expert to consult and
`
`that does not mean that one party can control the other.
`
`Um, so we’ll weigh all that into consideration, um, and,
`
`uh, decide the issue.
`
` MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. First let me see if there
`
`are any further questions to see if we’ll, um, rule on
`
`this or take it under advisement and then we’ll move onto
`
`the next issue.
`
` MR. HANOVER: I -- I didn’t have anything else
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` to
`
`add, uh, counsel for --.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: All right. Uh, this is, um, Judge
`
`Miriam Quinn. Uh, do I still have, um, Mr. Armond for
`
`Petitioner?
`
` MR. ARMON: Yes, Your Honor, I’m here.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Do we still have, uh, Mr.
`
`Lee and Mr. Hanna for Patent Owner?
`
` MR. HANNAH: Yes.
`
` MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So the panel has conferred
`
`on the request, uh, for additional, uh, to file a motion
`
`for additional discovery, and we are denying that request.
`
`Um, we at this point, uh, see that the, uh, information
`
`you have this -- at this point is speculative. The issue
`
`of control, uh, -- agreement is not relevant because it --
`
`that is not evidence of control at this time. It’s
`
`confidential information of the party. Um, also we are
`
`troubled by the fact that it --, um, objections at the
`
`deposition or the instructions not to answer were not
`
`dealt with during the deposition, and that, uh, by
`
`engaging now in additional discovery, um, that’s an
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`inefficient use of the resources of both the parties and
`
`the Court, um, in having to decide a matter that should
`
`have been dealt with, um, while the objection was being
`
`made. Are there any questions on this ruling?
`
` MR. HANNAH: No.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Petitioner?
`
` MR. ARMON: Uh, none for Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now let’s move on to issue
`
`number two. Um, I believe, Petitioner, you requested, um,
`
`to raise an issue of -- if I recall correctly there was a
`
`declaration of a Mr. Sirer (phonetic) and you seek to have
`
`a replacement declaration in place. You have the floor to
`
`request your relief.
`
` MR. ARMON: Thank you, Your Honor. This is an
`
`unusual situation I’ve never encountered before. Um, our
`
`-- our petition is based primarily on a reference called
`
`Kazon (phonetic) and a secondary reference called --. Um,
`
`the author of the secondary reference or lead author is an
`
`individual who’s now a professor at Cornell University.
`
`Um, the individual willingly provided a declaration to
`
`authenticate the publication of the Sire reference prior
`
`to the filing of our petition. Um, we filed that
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`declaration when we filed our petition, um, later, you
`
`know, somewhat recently. Patent Owner served evidentiary
`
`objections and then requested the -- I’m sorry, the
`
`deposition of Dr. Sirer. And when we reached out to Dr.
`
`Sirer regarding the evidentiary objections and request for
`
`deposition, uh, the response from Dr. Sirer was that he
`
`wanted a $35,000 non-refundable fee plus $650 an hour to,
`
`um, to appear to speak to the contents of the declaration.
`
`Um, that’s troubling to us because even, uh, were my
`
`client willing to pay that, which I think is unwarranted
`
`for a 30 minute or hour long, uh, deposition, it certainly
`
`wouldn’t be his normal hourly rate as a university
`
`professor. And, um, plainly there’d be a huge bias
`
`problem that would make the testimony worthless anyway.
`
`So, um, we ask in interest of justice that we be allowed
`
`to, uh, replace the Sirer declaration with the declaration
`
`of Mel Destart (phonetic). We timely served the Destart
`
`declaration. He is -- I’m sorry, we timely served that as
`
`supplemental evidence in response to Patent Owners’
`
`evidentiary objections. Uh, Mr. Destart is the head of
`
`the engineering library at the University of Washington.
`
`Um, in addition to his declaration, Your Honors, um, he
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`agreed to appear for deposition and Patent Owner is taking
`
`his deposition, uh, by agreement next week.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So what -- what is the
`
`relief you want to -- to do what?
`
` MR. ARMON: I seek, uh, relief from the Board to
`
`replace the Sirer declaration with the Destart
`
`declaration.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Under what rule?
`
` MR. ARMON: Uh, Your Honor, I’m not aware of any
`
`rule that speaks to this. Um, and I --
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Me either. That’s why I’m asking.
`
`This is a very unusual situation and I’m not understanding
`
`why -- why they couldn’t co-exist or why would you make --
`
`wouldn’t you make a motion for supplemental information if
`
`-- if you’re seeking to have something that was not
`
`submitted with the petitioning to the record.
`
` MR. ARMON: Given the timing that, uh, when Dr.
`
`Sirer made this demand, we passed the deadline for, um,
`
`seeking supplemental information, Your Honor. And I think
`
`this would go under the Board’s discretionary authority
`
`to, um, to provide extraordinary relief in unusual
`
`circumstances. And, um, I -- I cannot cite a rule because
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I’m not aware of this ever having happened before.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Right. But it’s not like Mr.
`
` Sirer
`
`is not available for deposition. It’s just that under the
`
`circumstances you will -- you will not be putting him up
`
`as a witness.
`
` MR. ARMON: Well, after making that demand he
`
`won’t take any of our calls, so --
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. That’s unfortunate.
`
` MR. ARMON: So I think as a practical matter,
`
`Your Honor, he is unavailable because, um, I indicated to
`
`him that I thought that was a -- an inappropriate type of
`
`demand. And since then he has not, uh, been willing to
`
`speak with us.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And you wouldn’t want to
`
`compel your own witness, right?
`
` MR. ARMON: Well, he is a third party. He’s not
`
`engaged, Your Honor, so this is not someone who we
`
`control. Um, if the Board wasn’t willing to entertain the
`
`relief I’ve requested, I think as an alternative we would
`
`certainly be happy to either, um, join Patent Owner in a
`
`request for leave to, um, to serve a subpoena on Dr. Sirer
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`or we certainly wouldn’t oppose that relief if Patent
`
`Owner sought it. Um, but, Your Honor, the reason I raise
`
`this is there have been a handful of cases where these
`
`types of discovery related issues, um, were not raised
`
`until a motion to strike or exclude was filed at the end
`
`of an IPR proceeding. And in a handful of cases guidance
`
`from other panels of the Board indicated that it should
`
`have been raised sooner. Um, and so given the unusual
`
`circumstances faced, I wanted to raise it now rather than
`
`waiting to see if Patent Owner would file a motion to
`
`strike the Sirer declaration.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: No, I understand. And I’ve --
`
` I’ve
`
`been in the panel with some of those cases, so I do
`
`appreciate the -- the diligence of knowing about the
`
`issue. Patent Owner, I understand that you object and,
`
`um, you have the floor to explain.
`
` MR. HANNAH: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`
` James
`
`Hanna. I’m going to be handling the, uh, I think the
`
`simpler of the issues today. Um, so, you know, I talked
`
`with, uh, counsel on the other side, you know, about the
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`situation. And, uh, I just think that it’s, uh, you know,
`
`any relief at this point is unnecessary. You know, the
`
`Sirer declaration, and what I advised them was, you know,
`
`if he was going to -- it sounds like counsel’s fine with
`
`withdrawing the Sirer declaration and -- and using the,
`
`uh, Destart declaration. The Destart declaration came in
`
`as supplemental evidence. And so if we -- and the only
`
`reason that Sirer was even, um, submitted was also for
`
`authentication. So, uh, in the normal course of things,
`
`if we file our motion to exclude, then they’re going to be
`
`able to get in the supplemental evidence through the --
`
`the Destart declaration in through supplemental evidence
`
`anyway. So it’s going to be -- it’s going to be in the
`
`record. Um, there’s no reason to, you know, create some
`
`new law, um, you know, at this point, um, to be able to,
`
`you know, account for this, you know, uh, unusual
`
`situation. I think that this should just play out through
`
`the normal course of things. Um, and again, that would be
`
`if we did file a motion to exclude ‘cause, you know, first
`
`of all, if none of this becomes an issue then, you know,
`
`we might not even file a motion to exclude. But assuming
`
`that we do, the Destart -- the declaration comes in at
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that point anyway. There’s no point to try to create some
`
`new law to say that the Destart declaration comes in now
`
`rather than after -- in the term supplemental evidence.
`
`Um, it sounds like counsel understood and agreed to that,
`
`but then he also -- like he just raised that -- that, you
`
`know, he did want to raise this as an issue before the
`
`Board so that he wasn’t concluded, um, from -- from later,
`
`um, you know, using the Destart declaration as
`
`supplemental evidence. And, um, that’s kind of why we’re
`
`on the call today for -- for this issue, at least. So --
`
`so I mean our position is that it’s -- it’s unnecessary at
`
`this point ‘cause Destart’s coming in, you know, one way
`
`or the other. And it might as well just come in through
`
`the normal course of the, uh, practice and rules.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So -- so your opposition is based
`
`on, um, it being premature at this point because you don’t
`
`-- you don’t even know if you’re going to raise it on a
`
`motion to exclude, and if you did, the appropriate time
`
`would be to have this come in at the opposition time?
`
` MR. HANNAH: Right. And -- and it’s already in.
`
`I mean he -- he time -- the opposing counsel timely served
`
`the Destart as supplemental evidence and we’re not
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`contesting that. Um, and so it is premature at this time.
`
`Sirer was only offered as authenticating, uh,
`
`authentication declaration. And then Destart essentially
`
`provides the same authentication, um, uh, information.
`
`And so, you know, withdrawing Sirer at this point isn’t
`
`going to preclude, um, the Petitioner from introducing
`
`Destart if we do file a motion to exclude. So I agree,
`
`yes, it is -- it’s premature at this time. If we do file
`
`a motion to exclude, Destart’s going to come in and then
`
`we can deal with it at that time.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Well -- well, what I’m
`
`hearing here is that, um, the -- the issue is that
`
`Petitioner filed a declaration to authenticate the
`
`document and obviate all this discovery that -- that now
`
`is having to take place. And he’s seeking to replace that
`
`with -- with this to clean up the record. I -- I don’t --
`
`I don’t see why we would need to wait. If you raised an
`
`objection and it’s, uh, and it’s, um, I’m -- to assume
`
`it’s a valid objection here. Um, why don’t -- why do we
`
`have to wait until the very end of the case to see the
`
`evidence come in in the record if you’re already taking
`
`the deposition?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. ARMON: Well, Your Honor, I would submit
`
`that if, you know, to the extent that the Sirer
`
`declaration came in, um, there should have been an
`
`understanding of acknowledgement that his deposition was
`
`going to have to take place. And as, you know, we pointed
`
`out, there is rule that allows this to come in. If it did
`
`come in through anything, it would come in through
`
`supplemental information. Um, and so I think that, you
`
`know, we’re trying to unnecessarily trying to create --
`
`create rules -- rules here when the same information’s
`
`going to be -- is going to be available. I just -- this
`
`completely unnecessary. Um, but it is -- there is no
`
`avenue in order to -- in order to introduce this. If it
`
`does come in it’d have to be through a motion for
`
`supplemental information, um, to bring this declaration in
`
`at this -- in at this point into the record.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Yeah, and -- and I’m seeing this
`
`request really as a way to file supplemental information
`
`because there is no rule to expunge and replace. Um, so,
`
`uh, Petitioner, um, have you considered supplemental
`
`information in this case?
`
` MR. ARMON: Your Honor, if the Board were
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`willing to allow Petitioner to file that motion to add the
`
`Destart declaration and supplemental information we would
`
`certainly do that. Again, I didn’t couch the request in
`
`that way because, um, the -- Dr. Sirer’s demand did not
`
`arrive until, uh, after that deadline for supplemental
`
`information -- sorry, supplemental information had passed.
`
`And so, um, again, this is a
`
` completely new one for us. And, uh, we would be happy to
`
`pursue that relief if the Board were willing to allow us
`
`to do so.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Um, otherwise, uh,
`
`--, right?
`
` MR. ARMON: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Anything else on the issue before
`
` I
`
`confer with, uh, my colleagues?
`
` MR. ARMON: Nothing else for Petitioner, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` MR. HANNAH: Uh, no, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you, I’ll put you on
`
`hold for a minute. Okay. This is, uh, Judge Miriam
`
`Quinn. Uh, do I still have, uh, Mr. Armond for
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Petitioner?
`
` MR. ARMON: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And Mr. Hanna and --
`
` MR. HANNAH: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay, good. The panel has
`
`conferred on the issue and, uh, we take the request that
`
`was submitted to us here today as a request for the late
`
`submission of supplemental information under Rule 123B.
`
`We are, uh, granting that request. We are going to allow
`
`Petitioner to file into the record, um, as the next
`
`available exhibit number the, uh, new -- the new
`
`declaration. We’re -- we’re not deciding here to expunge
`
`anything in the record. We’re just adding to the record
`
`the declaration, um, that, uh, has been submitted to us
`
`that we needed in light of the circumstances with Mr.
`
`Sirer, which, uh, support the late submission for this
`
`information that could not have been obtained, uh, earlier
`
`in his, uh, testimony that it directly related to
`
`testimony that was relied on in granting the petition.
`
`Are there any questions on this ruling?
`
` MR. ARMON: Not from Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
` MR. HANNAH: Uh, Your Honor -- Your Honor, for,
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`uh, Patent Owner, um, so in -- in light of the ruling it
`
`-- you said that the -- what -- what happens with the
`
`Sirer declaration at this point?
`
` JUDGE QUINN: It’s still in the record. We’re
`
`not -- we’re not deciding anything on it.
`
` MR. HANNAH: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Um, anything else on this
`
`issue?
`
` MR. ARMON: Nothing for Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
` MR. HANNAH: Uh, nothing from Patent Owner, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And now, uh, procedurally I
`
`would like to have the parties file a transcript into the
`
`record, uh, showing the rulings and the recording, uh,
`
`analysis of our ruling thereof. We’re not going to file
`
`an order.
`
` MR. HANNAH: Okay. Your Honor, I’d request that
`
`per Petitioner had requested the court reporter upon
`
`receiving the transcript we’ll file it.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. Anything else that we,
`
`uh, need to discuss at this time?
`
` MR. ARMON: Nothing from Petitioner.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS Ex. 1037
`
`
`
`Phone Conference
`
`June 14, 2016
`
`Page 26
`
` MR. HANNAH: Nothing from patent -- nothing from
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Let me see if there’s
`
`anything else on the panel side. All right. The panel is
`
`good. We don’t have any further questions. We thank you
`
`