Phone Conference
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
