6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------------x
`ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
` Petitioner,
` v.
`IGT,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------------x
` Case IPR2016-00181
` Patent 6,375,570 B1
`
` 2:00 p.m.
` June 8, 2016
` TELECONFERENCE
`BEFORE:
`
` JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent
` Judge
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street NW, Suite 812
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IGT 2111
`Aristocrat Technologies v. IGT
`IPR2016-00307
`
`
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------------x
`ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
` Petitioner,
` v.
`IGT,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------------x
` Case IPR2016-00181
` Patent 6,375,570 B1
`
` 2:00 p.m.
` June 8, 2016
` TELECONFERENCE
`BEFORE:
`
` JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent
` Judge
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street NW, Suite 812
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IGT 2111
`Aristocrat Technologies v. IGT
`IPR2016-00307
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------------x
`
`ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
` Petitioner,
` v.
`
`IGT,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------------x
` Case IPR2016-00182
` Patent 6,375,570 B1
`
` 2:00 p.m.
` June 8, 2016
`
` TELECONFERENCE
`
`BEFORE:
`
` JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 3
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------------x
`
`ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
` Petitioner,
` v.
`
`IGT,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------------x
` Case IPR2016-00252
` Patent 7,303,469 B2
`
` 2:00 p.m.
` June 8, 2016
`
` TELECONFERENCE
`
`BEFORE:
`
` JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 4
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1100 New York Avenue
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: ROBERT STERNE, ESQ.
` - and -
` MICHELLE HOLOUBEK, ESQ.
` - AND -
` BARTLIT BECK PALENCHAR & SCOTT, LLP
` 54 West Hubbard Street
` Chicago, Illinois 60654
` BY: JASON PELTZ, ESQ.
`
` COVINGTON & BURLING
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
` BY: ANDREA REISTER, ESQ.
` - and -
` JAY ALEXANDER, ESQ.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Page 5
`
` JUDGE COCKS: Hello, good
` afternoon. This is Judges Cocks and I
` have with me Judge Kim.
` Do we have counsel for the
` Petitioner on the call?
` MS. REISTER: Yes, we do, Your
` Honor, this is Andrea Reister and Jay
` Alexander from Covington on behalf of
` Aristocrat, the Petitioner.
` JUDGE COCKS: Thank you, Ms.
` Reister.
` Do we have counsel for the Patent
` Owner on the phone?
` MR. STERNE: Yes, Judge Cocks.
` This is Robert Sterne from Sterne
` Kessler.
` With me today is my partner,
` Michelle Holoubeck, who is also of record
` in these proceedings.
` We also have on the line, Your
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 6
` Honor, in addition to the court reporter,
` Jason Peltz, P-e-l-t-z from Bartlit Beck,
` the litigation firm that is in the
` concurrent litigation in this matter.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you,
` Mr. Sterne.
` So, this is an initial conference
` call requested by the Patent Owner for
` five separate proceedings.
` Let me briefly go through them, IPR
` 2016, 181, 182, 252, 305 and 307 involving
` three U.S. patents, 6,375,570, 6,702,675
` and 7,303,469; do I have that right?
` MR. STERNE: I believe you do,
` Your Honor. This is Robert Sterne
` speaking.
` JUDGE COCKS: All right, thank
` you Mr. Sterne.
` Now, Mr. Sterne, you had requested
` this call with respect to two particular
` items, so I'm going to have you, perhaps,
` fill us in.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` An indication of a motion to
` terminate, you are seeking a motion to
` file a motion to terminate and a motion to
` stay?
` So can you give us a little
` background, and before you do that, let me
` just say, Mr. Sterne, when a transcript of
` this call becomes available, would you go
` ahead and file it as an exhibit in all
` five of the proceedings?
` MR. STERNE: Absolutely, Your
` Honor, and we have Stephen Moore, the
` court reporter, on. We have talked
` about that already a couple of minutes
` earlier.
` We will have this done on an
` expedited basis for your review.
` JUDGE COCKS: Thank you very
` much. Now, could you go ahead and tell
` us a little bit more about the focus of
` this call?
` MR. STERNE: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` We requested this call, as you
` appropriately stated, for two reasons.
` One, we sought permission to file a
` motion to stay these IPR proceedings, and
` second, we would like to bring to the
` Board's attention ITT's intent to seek
` permission to file a motion to terminate
` in the future.
` I would like to explain the motion
` to stay proposal and then a little bit
` about the permission to file a motion to
` terminate.
` Specifically, Your Honors, we seek
` permission to file a motion to stay
` because we believe it is in the best
` interest of Patent Owner, ITT, Petitioner,
` Aristocrat and the Board, to stay all of
` the IPRs based on two developments that
` have occurred since the Board's
` institution decisions in the 181, 182 and
` 252 IPRs.
` First, on May 3, 2016 the Federal
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Circuit heard oral arguments in Husky
` Injection Molding System, Inc. versus
` Athena Automation. Your Honors, that's
` case number 15-1726.
` The singular issue Husky argued on
` appeal is whether the doctrine of assignor
` estoppel is applicable to IPR proceedings
` at the PTAB.
` To be complete, Athena cross
` appealed the Board's final decision
` denying an anticipation ground.
` Your Honors, as you are aware, ITT
` raised the issue of assignor estoppel in
` its Patent Owner preliminary response.
` In the institution decision the
` Board determined that the doctrine of
` assignor estoppel was not applicable to
` IPR proceedings.
` You did not specifically address
` whether assignor estoppel would apply here
` if it was applicable to IPR proceedings.
` However, the Federal Circuit's
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` decision in Husky versus Athena or the
` Supreme Court's decision in Cuozzo will
` likely impact whether the doctrine of
` assignor estoppel applies to IPRs.
` Now, given the impending Supreme
` Court and Federal Circuit decisions
` relating to assignor -- relating to the
` assignor estoppel issue and the early
` stages of these proceedings, Patent Owners
` believes that there is good cause to
` extend the time limit of the IPRs beyond
` the current one year completion deadline
` to the 18 month statutory deadline set
` forth in the law.
` Thus, Patent Owner requests
` permission today to file a motion to stay
` the trial period for six months in order
` to promote PTAB economy and efficiency for
` the Board and both parties.
` A stay would allow the Board to
` evaluate the results of the Cuozzo and
` Husky decisions and could result in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 11
` judicial economy and reduced expenses for
` the parties.
` Petitioner may argue that there is
` uncertainty surrounding when the Supreme
` Court will issue the Cuozzo decision and
` when the Federal Circuit will issue the
` Husky decision.
` With regard to Cuozzo, it was
` argued on April 25, 2016 and under Supreme
` Court rules will issue by the end of the
` month.
` Regarding Husky, Federal Circuit
` data indicates that it will issue within
` six months from the oral hearing in early
` May at the latest.
` We are assuming that the Husky
` decision will be precedential based on the
` oral argument and the issues involved and
` they have not issued, Your Honors, a Rule
` 36 decision to date.
` So, second --
` JUDGE COCKS: Actually, before
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you move on, we will address -- if you
` were going to move on to the motion to
` terminate, let's stick with this for the
` moment.
` I would like to hear from opposing
` counsel from the Petitioner your thoughts
` on what Mr. Sterne just mentioned and
` requested.
` MR. STERNE: Your Honor, before
` we go to that, may I say one other
` thing?
` JUDGE COCKS: Did you have
` another point to make about the motion?
` MR. STERNE: Yes, there is
` another major point that I have not
` addressed yet, which I think would be
` important; it won't take much time.
` If you don't mind, I would like to
` give you a little additional information
` about what's going on in the Nevada
` District Court.
` So, in addition to what I just
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 13
` presented, in the parallel District Court
` case in Nevada and that's why we have
` Mr. Peltz on the line from Bartlit Beck,
` on May 10th IGT asked in that court case
` that the judge enjoin Petitioner,
` Aristocrat, from participating in these
` IPR proceedings.
` This request by ITT was initially
` denied by the District Court before these
` IPRs were filed, Your Honors, but on May
` 12 the Federal Circuit vacated the
` District Court's denial of the prohibition
` to participate and remanded the request to
` the District Court for further
` consideration.
` The issue the District Court will
` again address in the near term is whether
` assignor estoppel in the District Court
` prevents Petitioner, Aristocrat, from
` participating in these IPRs.
` So, what we are saying, Your
` Honors, in summary, is that Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 14
` seeks a motion to stay to allow time for
` these issues to be decided in their
` respective forums, namely the District
` Court, the Federal Circuit and the Supreme
` Court.
` Decisions are imminent from each of
` these tribunals, and they will very likely
` impact these IPRs.
` Regarding the assignor estoppel
` issue before the Board, we submit it is
` prudent and responsible to grant the stay
` both from the perspective of the Board and
` the parties.
` That's what I had to say, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE COCKS: All right, thank
` you, Mr. Sterne.
` Ms. Reister, can we have your
` thoughts?
` MS. REISTER: Yes, Your Honor. I
` don't believe the Patent Owner has
` identified any circumstance where the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 15
` Board has actually extended the one year
` period, and we are not aware of any.
` But certainly here there is no
` extraordinary circumstance present to
` warrant pendency beyond the one year
` period.
` The relatively early stage of these
` present proceedings is not counterbalanced
` by the uncertainty of the Husky decision.
` The Federal Circuit may not even
` reach the assignor estoppel issue, as it
` would be unchallengeable under Section
` 314(d) as was argued in the intervenor
` brief of the Patent Office.
` The timing of the decision cannot
` be predicted with any certainty,
` particularly given the possibility of an
` en banc rehearing, and the variation in
` the panels and offering judges in terms of
` how quickly they actually write decisions.
` Nor has Mr. Sterne taken into
` account that the parties may settle before
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` a decision is issued.
` And there is even less certainty as
` to the merits of the decision and it's
` impact, if any, in these proceedings.
` So, even if the Federal Circuit
` were to decide that assignor estoppel is
` an issue that could be raised in an IPR,
` here there has not been any finding that
` assignor estoppel even exists.
` And I would point the Board to the
` PE Aerospace case where the Board also
` denied an extension pending the outcome of
` the Husky case, notwithstanding the fact
` that the District Court had found that
` assignor estoppel did apply, and that case
` is IPR 2014 01510 paper 105.
` And even the Patent Owner agrees
` that there is good reason that the PTAB is
` not the right tribunal to consider
` assignor estoppel, and they argued as such
` to the Federal Circuit.
` The uncertainty that surrounds the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Husky decision runs counter to the
` statutory mandate of the just, speedy and
` inexpensive resolution of the five
` proceedings that we have here,
` particularly given that work will continue
` in parallel in any event.
` In fact, the Patent Owner has
` reached out to us to begin the process of
` scheduling depositions in these cases.
` So, there are no economies that are
` being gained here, and it certainly does
` not create the extraordinary circumstance
` for the Board to extend the pendency.
` JUDGE COCKS: All right, thank
` you, Ms. Reister.
` Mr. Sterne, do you have any
` additional comments about the motion to
` stay issue?
` MR. STERNE: No, Your Honor.
` But, I think that it's clear that
` this is a fundamental jurisdictional
` question about these IPRs, the assignor
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` estoppel doctrine applied to IPRs.
` It's a very hot issue, which you
` know, at the PTAB, there are other cases
` coming up at various stages that are
` dealing with this as well.
` I think the Federal Circuit and the
` Supreme Court are very focused based on
` listening to the oral arguments in both
` Cuozzo and in Husky about these
` fundamental jurisdictional issues.
` I don't think it's fair to
` characterize that it would not be in the
` best interests of the Board and the
` parties to have a limited stay here.
` We are going to be seeing the
` Supreme Court decision by the end of the
` month. As I said, I think there is a high
` probability we are going to have a Federal
` Circuit decision, even if it doesn't go en
` banc initially, we are going to have
` something soon.
` So I think that for all the reasons
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` that I articulated already, in all due
` respect to my colleague, that it would be
` in the best interests of everyone that
` this case be stayed at this time.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
` Let's move on briefly now to the second
` issue, the motion to terminate.
` Can you give me a little more
` background about what the nature of that
` is?
` MR. STERNE: Yes, Your Honor.
` Beyond our request to brief the
` issue of the stay, we wanted to alert the
` Board that IGT plans to request a motion
` to terminate should the pending Federal
` Circuit and Supreme Court cases find that
` assignor estoppel is applicable to IPR
` proceedings, or should the Nevada District
` Court enjoin Petitioner, Aristocrat, from
` participating in these IPRs.
` We understand that requesting a
` motion to terminate is premature, but we
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` want to alert the Board of the issue.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
` You are correct that at this point
` it is premature. I understand, I
` understand what you are saying.
` In the event that certain things
` transpire and we are in a situation where
` that may be appropriate, I believe that
` would be a better time to raise that
` issue.
` Thank you for bringing it to the
` attention of the Board, but I don't see it
` that there is any further action from the
` Board at this point on that issue.
` MR. STERNE: Your Honor, I
` understand.
` MS. REISTER: Your Honor, this is
` Andrea Reister for the Petitioner.
` May I briefly respond to the final
` remarks?
` JUDGE COCKS: Yes, please do.
` MS. REISTER: We certainly agree
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` that the issue of the motion to
` terminate is premature, and we
` appreciate Your Honor's identifying that
` as well.
` I just wanted to point out that
` with respect to the motion to stay, there
` have been a number of Board decisions that
` have looked at this issue in light of
` pending decisions of significant import,
` and many of those decisions occurred prior
` to the date for the Patent Owner to
` respond, so they were also in this early
` stage.
` There was a request for
` authorization to extend the motion for
` time pending the Alice decision; that was
` denied by the Board.
` There was a request to request
` authorization to file a motion for stay
` until after the Cooper V. Lee case, which
` was going to the very heart of the ability
` to have IPRs, the constitutionality
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` challenge question.
` In each of these cases, the Board
` unanimously came to the conclusion that it
` did not rise to the extraordinary
` situation, even in cases where there was a
` joint request.
` There are continually going to be
` cases of import that are before courts
` that may or may not affect the outcome of
` a particular proceeding.
` And again, we would urge the Board
` here to find in the same way that the
` situations here, notwithstanding Cuozzo,
` notwithstanding whether or not if the
` Federal Circuit would even reach the
` assignor estoppel issue, doesn't raise to
` a level where we have to go against the
` statute and extend the pendency.
` And if the Board were minded to do
` anything, we would certainly request
` written briefing on the point.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 23
` Let me just remind the parties that
` the purpose of this call is not to decide
` whether to stay or not, it is simply
` whether to authorize the filing of a
` motion and a corresponding opposition.
` So, I appreciate the substance that
` you just provided, Ms. Reister, but not
` necessarily as important for the nature of
` this call.
` So, if the parties would please
` remain on the line, I am going to confer
` with my colleague briefly and we will get
` back to you, but please stay on the call.
` Okay, thank you.
` (At this point in the proceedings
` there was a recess, after which the
` proceeding continued as follows:)
` JUDGE COCKS: Hello, this is
` judge Cocks. I am once again on the
` call with Judge Kim.
` Do we still have counsel from both
` sides, for the Petitioner, counsel for the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`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?
` MS. REISTER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE COCKS: Thank you.
` And counsel for the Patent Owner?
` MR. STERNE: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
` The panel appreciates the parties'
` comments and insights today.
` We are not going to make a
` determination on this call, but will
` follow up with an order with our letting
` you know whether we are going to authorize
` a motion and a corresponding opposition.
` So unless the parties have any
` other issue in that respect, unless a
` party may have any other comments they
` would like to make with respect to those
` two, the motion to stay issue, we
` understand the parties' sides, I don't
` think we need to hear anything else.
` I'm going to move on to a few other
` preliminary matters that are typical with
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` respect to an initial conference call.
` Have the parties -- do the parties
` have any issue with the scheduling orders
` in any of the five cases?
` MS. REISTER: This is counsel for
` Petitioner.
` No, Your Honor, we do not have any
` issue with the scheduling order.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, Mr. Sterne?
` MR. STERNE: No, Your Honor, we
` do not.
` JUDGE COCKS: As we indicated in
` the scheduling orders, there is no
` protective order that has been entered
` at this time.
` There is some confusion in that
` regard from the practice guide, but the
` parties understand there is currently no
` protective order in the case.
` Does either side envision a need
` for a protective order?
` Let's start with Petitioner.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Ms. Reister?
` MS. REISTER: Your Honor, I don't
` believe at this time we envision any
` need for a protective order.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
` Mr. Sterne, the Patent Owner, do
` you envision a need?
` MR. STERNE: Not at the present
` time, Your Honor, but you know this
` whole issue of nonobvious evidence from
` Petitioner may arise through the
` District Court case or other avenues, so
` we may be back on this issue.
` JUDGE COCKS: I understand
` circumstances may change, but at this
` time you do not see a need for a
` protective order?
` MR. STERNE: That is correct.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
` Mr. Sterne, I assume you are aware
` of the potential for a motion to amend.
` Do you foresee, everything else
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 27
` aside, right now do you foresee the need
` for a motion to amend with respect to any
` of the three patents?
` MR. STERNE: Your Honor, we don't
` foresee a need at this time, but again,
` we have just been brought on the case
` and we may change that.
` But at this point in time we do not
` see a need to amend.
` JUDGE COCKS: I'm sure you are
` aware you do not need prior
` authorization from the Board, but there
` is a conferral requirement, so if you do
` at some point contemplate filing a
` motion to amend, please schedule a call
` with the Board and we will provide a
` little more detail about what we would
` need to see.
` MR. STERNE: Thank you, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE COCKS: Lastly, have the
` parties, have the parties discussed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` settlement for any of the cases?
` MR. STERNE: Not directly, Your
` Honor.
` I know that there are some
` discussions that are going in a larger
` context between the parties, but not
` specifically for these IPRs at this point.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, would that
` larger context potentially impact these
` IPRs, or is that just tangential?
` MR. STERNE: I would assume they
` would; depending on whether a global
` settlement, for example, could be
` reached.
` JUDGE COCKS: I see.
` All right, well the panel has
` nothing further.
` Unless the parties have any other
` issues or comments to make, we will
` conclude the call.
` But let's just make sure. Ms.
` Reister, do you have any other issue?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`
`Page 29
`
` MS. REISTER: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE COCKS: And Mr. Sterne, do
` you have any other issue?
` MR. STERNE: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you
` very much.
` The call is adjourned.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`6/8/2016
`
`Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. IGT
`
`Teleconference
`__..‘
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`I, STEPHEN J. MOORE,
`
`a Shorthand
`
`Reporter and Notary Public of the State of
`
`New York, do hereb
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
