`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` ------------------------------------------
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD
`
` ------------------------------------------
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC., :
`
` Petitioner, : Case IPR2016-00308
`
`vs. : Case IPR2016-00309
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., :
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
` Telephonic Hearing Held Before
`
` The U.S. Patent And Trademark Office
`
` Patent And Trial Appeal Board
`
` Administrative Law Judge Bryan F. Moore
`
` Administrative Law Judge Miriam L. Quinn
`
` Administrative Law Judge Matthew R. Clements
`
` Administrative Law Judge Peter P. Chen
`
` Tuesday, February 7, 2017
`
` 2:01 p.m.
`
`Reported by: Dana C. Ryan, RPR, CRR
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
` 1
`
`ARISTA 1028
`Arista v. Cisco
`IPR2016-00309
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Telephonic hearing held before the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial
`
`Appeal Board, on Tuesday, February 7, 2017,
`
`commencing at approximately 2:00 p.m., taken by
`
`Dana C. Ryan, Registered Professional Reporter and
`
`Certified Realtime Reporter.
`
`1 2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`2
`
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`Page 3
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` RALPH A. PHILLIPS, ESQ.
`
` LINHONG ZHANG, ESQ.
`
` LAUREN A. DEGNAN, ESQ.
`
` ADAM SHARTZER, ESQ.
`
` Fish & Richardson
`
` 1425 K Street, Northwest
`
` 11th Floor
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`3
`
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
`
`Page 4
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` LORI A. GORDON, ESQ.
`
` DANIEL BLOCK, ESQ.
`
` Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
` 1100 New York Avenue, Northwest
`
` Suite 600
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JUDGE MOORE: I'll remind the parties
`
`that with the court reporter on the call you need
`
`to identify yourself before you speak so that she
`
`can correctly record our call today.
`
` This is a conference call in
`
`IPR2016-308 and 309. On the call with me are
`
`Judges Chen, Clements and Quinn.
`
` If we can have a roll call of who is on
`
`the call, and there's several issues so I'll just
`
`start with Patent Owner.
`
` MS. GORDON: Good afternoon, Your
`
`Honor. This is Lori Gordon with Sterne Kessler.
`
`I'm here today with Dan Block.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And for
`
`Petitioner.
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Hello, Your Honor. Here
`
`for Petitioner from Fish & Richardson is Ralph
`
`Phillips as well as Lauren Degnan, Linhong Zhang
`
`and Adam Shartzer.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. There's a number
`
`of issues that we need to cover in this call all
`
`resulting from emails to the board. I'd like to
`
`start with an issue that is from a -- on a
`
`February 3rd email. This is an email from -- from
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner, I believe. Let me get to the right
`
`spot here. Yes. This email from Petitioner in
`
`which there's a follow-up on an issue, and I'll --
`
`I'll just read it so we're all on the same place.
`
`This is from Ralph Phillips: Since the last
`
`email, we've continued to meet and confer with
`
`counsel of Patent Owner regarding the issue and
`
`have reached an agreement. Patent Owner has
`
`agreed to narrow its objection -- Petitioner has
`
`agreed to narrow its objection and Patent Owner
`
`did not object to our correcting filing provided
`
`the record reflects a narrower scope of
`
`objections.
`
` Just so that we have it since we have
`
`it on the record, could we -- starting with
`
`Petitioner -- just expand a little bit and explain
`
`to me what's going on with that issue?
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Sure.
`
` This again is Ralph Phillips. So as
`
`was laid out in that email as well as the one
`
`prior, we had an issue with the filing and service
`
`of Paper 22. Again, that was Petitioner's
`
`objections to the evidence cited in the Patent
`
`Owner's response. Through the meet-and-confer
`
`process, as you just -- as stated in the email you
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`just read, we reached an agreement whereby
`
`Petitioner agreed to reduce its number of
`
`objections. And that, again, provided we're able
`
`to reflect that in some way in what gets filed,
`
`Patent Owner was okay with us correcting the
`
`filing with regard to Paper 22.
`
` So really we were just -- again, I have
`
`never had this come up before, and we're really
`
`looking to the board for some guidance as to how
`
`they'd like us to proceed. We could, of course,
`
`just file what we intended to file with some
`
`addendum. We could potentially file an additional
`
`paper that -- or a new paper in its place that
`
`just lists the remaining exhibits.
`
` Again, we are really just sort of
`
`looking for some guidance from the board in terms
`
`of how best to go forward.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And before I go on
`
`just -- Patent Owner, do you have anything to add?
`
` MS. GORDON: No, Your Honor. I think
`
`Patent Owner agreed with the modifications that
`
`Petitioners [sic] were making to their objections,
`
`but we seek to have the record clear on what
`
`objections are currently pending in the record.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Well, I'm going to
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`suggest -- what we're going to do here is
`
`Petitioner should refile the objections and file
`
`them with only the currently existing objections.
`
`And also on the record there will be a follow-up
`
`summary of this call, and it will reflect, you
`
`know, the reasons why the objection is there. So
`
`between the new objections and the summary of the
`
`call, the record should be clear. Okay.
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Sounds good. Thank you,
`
`Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Sure.
`
` So the next issue in that same email is
`
`regarding a motion to strike claim charts and
`
`other exhibits. So once again, if the Petitioner
`
`could fill me in on the issue.
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. Thank you
`
`again. This is Ralph Phillips, Your Honor.
`
` Again, we are still on the 309 case.
`
`In the 309 case, Petitioner seeks leave to file a
`
`motion to strike the claim charts at Exhibits 2015
`
`and 2047, as well as other exhibits that are only
`
`meaningfully cited in those charts including
`
`Exhibits 2016 through 2023, as well as 2027, on
`
`the grounds that they contain additional argument
`
`beyond what is contained in the Patent Owner's
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`response and as such violate the word count
`
`prescribed for Patent Owner's response in 37 CFR
`
`Section 42.24.
`
` The -- more particularly, the Patent
`
`Owner's response relegates significant portions of
`
`its arguments regarding secondary indicia of
`
`non-obviousness and conception to charts attached
`
`to the Patent Owner's response instead of properly
`
`making the arguments in the body of the response
`
`itself.
`
` With regard to the secondary indicia,
`
`attached at Exhibit 2015 is a claim chart that
`
`purports to map the claims of the '668 patent to
`
`certain Cisco and Arista products in the attempt
`
`to demonstrate copying. The response itself
`
`contains no such mapping, instead states only
`
`that, quote, Arista's copying is well-documented
`
`and evidences a deliberate effort to duplicate the
`
`claim that's subject matter, close quote; and then
`
`cites Exhibit 2015. You can see that in response
`
`at page 61.
`
` Again, this is not a summary of
`
`analysis found elsewhere in response; rather, it's
`
`a supplemental analysis that goes well beyond what
`
`is contained in the Patent Owner's response.
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` And then similarly at Exhibit 2047
`
`there's a claim chart that purports to map claims
`
`of the '668 patent to a Cisco specification in an
`
`attempt to demonstrate prefiling inception.
`
`Again, the response contains no such mapping and
`
`instead simply cites the chart and represents that
`
`it maps the disclosure from the spec to the
`
`language of the claims. You can see that in the
`
`response at page 36.
`
` Moreover, Exhibit 2047 includes
`
`citations to other exhibits that are only
`
`cursorily cited in the Patent Owner's response
`
`often in mass cites with no pincites. For
`
`example, if you look at page 56 of Patent Owner's
`
`response, you'll see one cite to Exhibit 2016
`
`through 2023, just like that; no point cites, no
`
`further discussion.
`
` Again, this is not a summary of
`
`analysis found elsewhere in response, but it's a
`
`supplemental analysis that goes well beyond what's
`
`contained in the Patent Owner's response.
`
` If you look at the certificate of
`
`compliance, the Patent Owner's response contains
`
`13,791 words, which is a little over 200 pages
`
`beyond the -- below the 14,000-word limit imposed
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`by the CFR. By our count, Exhibit 2015 contains
`
`3,994 words; Exhibit 2047 contains 2,390 words.
`
`So you put them together and effectively they add
`
`over 6,000 words to Patent Owner's response. We
`
`feel this is a clear attempt at an end-around on
`
`the word limits imposed by the CFR and shouldn't
`
`be permitted, and for that reason Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests leave to file a motion to
`
`strike Exhibits 2015 and 2047 and the other
`
`exhibits previously mentioned that are only
`
`substantially cited therein.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Patent Owner, do
`
`you have a response.
`
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor. This
`
`request by Petitioner is extremely untimely.
`
`Patent Owner filed our Patent Owner reply in
`
`September -- the end of September, over four
`
`months ago; yet the first time we're hearing about
`
`this proposed motion to strike or any issue with
`
`our word count came really after Petitioners filed
`
`their reply. And there's no excuse for
`
`Petitioners sitting on this issue for four months
`
`to the point where Patent Owner is highly
`
`prejudiced because we're at a point in the
`
`proceeding where if this was an issue, which we
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`11
`
`
`
`believe it was not, we have no opportunity to take
`
`Page 12
`
`leave from the board to modify our Patent Owner
`
`response in any way. So we think -- we request
`
`the board deny their request because it is
`
`untimely and thus prejudicial for Patent Owner.
`
` And the second point, Your Honor, is
`
`that their request is actually moot. In
`
`Petitioner's reply, they've actually asked the
`
`board to not consider, I believe, Exhibit 2015,
`
`because it exceeds the page limit or for the same
`
`argument; yet they don't even mention any issue
`
`with Exhibit 2047. So Petitioners have actually
`
`made this request to strike or for the board to
`
`disregard these exhibits in their Petitioner's
`
`reply. Therefore, any motion to strike is moot
`
`because they have had their opportunity to make
`
`their case, and they chose to make it in their
`
`reply, and they chose to only address one of these
`
`exhibits, Exhibit 2015.
`
` And, so, for these reasons, Your Honor,
`
`we request the board deny it. In addition, of
`
`course we disagree with Petitioner's
`
`characterization that this is beyond the scope of
`
`what was permitted.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Petitioner, do you
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`have a response?
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah. I guess, first,
`
`in regard to timeliness, I'm just not aware and I
`
`didn't hear any rule cited that requires a
`
`specific timing with respect to when a motion to
`
`strike is brought. And, furthermore, I'd note
`
`that this isn't a situation where -- for example,
`
`in a motion to exclude, another declaration could
`
`have been obtained or something else could have
`
`been done to shore up something that appears to
`
`be, you know, questionable for evidentiary ground,
`
`authentication or otherwise. This is a 6,000 word
`
`overage on a filing.
`
` Respectfully, I don't really know what
`
`the corrective measure would have been, you know,
`
`had we said it back then or brought the motion
`
`now. Again, it would be --
`
` JUDGE MOORE: And remind me, when is
`
`trial set for this case?
`
` MS. GORDON: Oral argument is set for
`
`March 7th, Your Honor. In about a month from now.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: About a month. All
`
`right. Thank you.
`
` Go ahead. Sorry.
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Right. So again, I
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`mean, my point is just that, A, we're not aware of
`
`any timing issues here with regard to the bringing
`
`of this motion, first of all, you know, under the
`
`rules. And secondly, again in terms of prejudice,
`
`I don't really understand what the remedy would
`
`have been for, again, trying to correct what
`
`amounts to blowing the word count by over 6,000.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Is that all you
`
`have?
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: That's the thought from
`
`Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Yeah. Okay.
`
` Patent Owner, any further response?
`
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor. I think
`
`in other cases the board has entertained and
`
`allowed the patent owner or a party to file a
`
`corrected paper cutting down overages, and that
`
`would be -- would have been an option that would
`
`have been, you know, available to us had we been
`
`informed of this in a timely manner. So I
`
`disagree with Petitioners that they could sit on
`
`this until after the reply was filed because there
`
`was no rule against it.
`
` These proceedings are supposed to be
`
`just and fair, and sitting on a motion to strike
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`for an overage of word count for four months after
`
`their reply was filed is not just or fair to the
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Anything else from
`
`Petitioner?
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Your Honor. I
`
`would just note that I think given -- again, given
`
`the size of these charts and the clear guidance
`
`provided by the CFR, I really don't think it can
`
`be put on us -- you know, the onus can be put on
`
`us to notify them as to what would be a pretty
`
`apparent violation of the filing requirements of
`
`PTAB.
`
` MS. GORDON: Your Honor --
`
` JUDGE MOORE: All right.
`
` MS. GORDON: -- I'd like --
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Yes, go ahead.
`
` MS. GORDON: -- to reply on that. I
`
`think Petitioner points that criticize are trying
`
`to support their point, but Patent Owner, first,
`
`does not believe that these charts exceed what was
`
`permitted; we think they're corroborating
`
`evidence. And to imply that all 6,000 words in
`
`these charts should be counted, I think is
`
`improper and intended to prejudice against further
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`patent owners.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And we've gone
`
`back and forth here a few times, but I'm not sure
`
`if I heard a specific argument that the material
`
`in the reply -- in the response was proper and did
`
`not violate page limits, and so maybe you could
`
`specific specifically to that for a moment.
`
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor. Dan
`
`Block is going to address that for the Patent
`
`Owner.
`
` MR. BLOCK: Yes. Thank you, Your
`
`Honor. So again as my colleague Ms. Gordon
`
`pointed out, we believe, for example, starting
`
`with the swear behind chart showing conception,
`
`again we point in the Patent Owner response to the
`
`document explaining that the underlying document
`
`is evidence of conception. And all Dr. Almeroth
`
`does in his declaration is go through and explain
`
`in a little bit more detail about how certain
`
`aspects of that document corroborate the fact that
`
`our inventors said they conceived of the
`
`invention, you know, at least as of the certain
`
`date that they set forth in their declaration.
`
` So again, the -- the chart is just
`
`corroborating conception and is even -- and even
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`further, it's just explaining in a little bit more
`
`detail, which we believe is proper to do in the
`
`declaration, why the underlying document is
`
`evidence of that conception.
`
` THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. And what about
`
`the issue of copy?
`
` MR. BLOCK: Yeah, I apologize. Yeah,
`
`so the same point goes for the copying as well.
`
`Inside the Patent Owner response, we go into great
`
`detail to explain why copying is present. And the
`
`chart is just additional -- additional evidence of
`
`that copying, additional corroborating evidence of
`
`that -- of that copying.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Anything from
`
`Petitioner in response?
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
`
`Thank you.
`
` The only point I'd make is that both
`
`for conception and copying, there's a requirement
`
`that patent owners show an element-by-element
`
`analysis of how the specification or the alleged
`
`copying device is practicing the claim. It's --
`
`it's no different than what Petitioner has to do
`
`when it's trying to invalidate the claims.
`
` If we had -- if we had put in our
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`petition that these claims are anticipated, please
`
`take a look at chart whatever in doctor
`
`so-and-so's declaration, we would be having the
`
`same call in the opposite direction and
`
`justifiably so.
`
` So I just think, you know, referring to
`
`the pages that I mentioned earlier, you'll see
`
`that in the response there are very cursory
`
`references to these charts, and the charts do the
`
`heavy lifting or purport to do the heavy lifting.
`
`It's improper, and we think they should be -- they
`
`should be struck.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Unless there's
`
`anything further, I'm going to take just a moment
`
`to confer with the panel, and then I'll be back on
`
`this call in just a moment.
`
` (Recess -- 2:20 p.m.)
`
` (After recess -- 2:24 p.m.)
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. This is Judge
`
`Moore back on the call. I think the final
`
`issue -- to that previous issue, we're going to
`
`take that issue under advisement, and following
`
`this call there will be a summary of this call
`
`which will include an order indicating how -- how
`
`that issue will be handled.
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Okay. So the final --
`
` MS. GORDON: Thank you --
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Was there something from
`
`the parties?
`
` MS. GORDON: Oh, no. Just saying
`
`thanks, Your Honor.
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you from
`
`Petitioner as well.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: I think the final issue
`
`is an email from Patent Owner requesting
`
`authorization to file a motion to strike in the
`
`308 and the 309 cases. So we'll start with the
`
`Patent Owner if she could explain the issue.
`
` MR. BLOCK: Absolutely. Your Honor,
`
`this is Dan Block for Patent Owner. So what I'll
`
`do is start with the 308 case, and then do you
`
`want me to move on to the 309 after that or --
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Yeah, we can handle them
`
`together. That's fine.
`
` MR. BLOCK: Okay. Absolutely.
`
` So at a high level for both cases, we
`
`believe Petitioner has -- has included a number of
`
`arguments in their replies that exceed the scope
`
`as forbidden under Rule 42.23.
`
` Starting with -- starting with 308, the
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`first issue relates to an exhibit that was
`
`included with the reply, and its cited on page 15.
`
`And this is Exhibit 10 -- 1023. I'm sorry. You
`
`know what? Your Honor, I was starting with the
`
`309 -- 309 number. I apologize for the confusion.
`
`I get confused myself often. So I'll start again
`
`with 308, which is the '668 patent -- which is the
`
`'537 patent. I did it again.
`
` So with the '537 patent, again there is
`
`a number of sections -- in fact, we believe almost
`
`all the sections of the reply are outside the
`
`scope. Not to belabor the point, I think I was
`
`just going to start with one example unless Your
`
`Honors want to hear all the areas we believe that
`
`exceed the scope.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Well, that would be for a
`
`motion so just if you'll give us enough that we
`
`have an idea of what we're dealing with.
`
` MR. BLOCK: That's what I figured. And
`
`this is on pages 11 through 13. And here Arista
`
`is arguing that the combination of Sandick and
`
`AgentX and Mathney teach -- teach certain elements
`
`under their proposed claim instruction. But in
`
`the institution decision, the board declined to
`
`institute the AgentX, Sandick and Mathney grounds;
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`20
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`nevertheless, in the Petitioner's reply, the
`
`Petitioner is re-raising the Mathney ground. So
`
`we believe that that's a clear example of
`
`something that exceeds the scope permitted by the
`
`reply.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: All right. And do you
`
`have another example or no?
`
` MR. BLOCK: Absolutely we have another
`
`example as well.
`
` And, so, on pages 18 through 21, Arista
`
`is again arguing for the (inaudible) that, one, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that you could use a CLI to figure this
`
`AgentX process to generate registration requests,
`
`and to do this they cite to some deposition
`
`testimony of their expert Dr. Mohapatra. But just
`
`a few questions later in that deposition -- and
`
`that's Exhibit 2003 -- Dr. Mohapatra admits that,
`
`number one, that's a new opinion of his and,
`
`number two, it wasn't included in his declaration.
`
`And the cite for that is on page 127, lines 8
`
`through 13.
`
` So again we believe that that is a new
`
`argument and is impermissible in the Petitioner's
`
`reply because Arista's own expert is admitting
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`21
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that it's a new argument and that it wasn't
`
`included in his declaration.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: All right. Maybe we
`
`should go to the other case and get a couple of
`
`examples there before we give the Petitioner an
`
`opportunity to discuss the issue.
`
` MR. BLOCK: Absolutely. So moving on
`
`to the 309 case which is the '668 patent. So on
`
`page 15 of Petitioner's reply, Arista cites to a
`
`new exhibit, Exhibit 1023, which is an Internet
`
`archive printout, which purportedly shows that the
`
`CoreBuilder exhibit is available for download.
`
`This is a brand new exhibit cited -- cited in the
`
`reply.
`
` Now, in -- Patent Owner timely objected
`
`to the evidence included in the petition including
`
`the CoreBuilder exhibit as well as some
`
`declarations that purportedly showed the public
`
`availability of the CoreBuilder exhibit. And
`
`Petitioner had the ability to respond with
`
`supplemental evidence, and it could have included
`
`this Exhibit 1023 Internet archive in that
`
`supplemental evidence, but instead they chose to
`
`include it in their reply for the first time where
`
`we don't have the opportunity to address it, which
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`22
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`we could have done in our Patent Owner response
`
`had they timely included it with their
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
` That's the first point. And --
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And on that point
`
`in your reply, do you make an argument that the
`
`CoreBuilder or whatever it was called is not
`
`publicly available? Do you make that argument in
`
`your reply --
`
` MR. BLOCK: Yes --
`
` JUDGE MOORE: -- in --
`
` MR. BLOCK: -- we do.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: -- your response? Excuse
`
`me.
`
` MR. BLOCK: Yes, we do, Your Honor.
`
` So in our Patent Owner response, we
`
`raised that the CoreBuilder was not publicly
`
`available and addressed some of the issues there.
`
`And again, we could have addressed this 1023 had
`
`it been presented to us, but now we don't have the
`
`opportunity to do that.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Right. Right.
`
` There's also the point, though, that
`
`the purpose of the reply is -- is to respond to
`
`your arguments and -- and respond. And certainly
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`23
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`because Petitioner has the burden, it's usually
`
`the case that the Petitioner get the final go
`
`on -- on putting arguments and possibly evidence
`
`on the record at this time; correct?
`
` MR. BLOCK: Well, I understand that
`
`point, Your Honor. But, first of all, I think
`
`that Arista was required to put forth all the
`
`evidence in the petition. But, again, we objected
`
`to the evidence they put forth and that would have
`
`been the time in their supplemental evidence
`
`response to be able to include this exhibit, and
`
`had they done that -- had they done that we would
`
`have had the ability to respond to that in our
`
`Patent Owner response. And, so, this isn't a case
`
`where they're responding to an argument. This is
`
`evidence they should have either included in the
`
`petition, and to the extent they didn't include it
`
`in their Petitioner, they certainly should have
`
`included it in their supplemental evidence to our
`
`objections.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Maybe another
`
`example.
`
` MR. BLOCK: Yeah. Absolutely.
`
` So there's another argument that Patent
`
`Owner makes with respect to the -- with respect to
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`24
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the court services element of the claims, and for
`
`the first time Patent Owner is -- Patent Owner is
`
`arguing -- is arguing that Amara's packet
`
`classifiers -- and this begins on -- begins on
`
`page 8 -- are the claims for its services.
`
` But if you read the petition -- if you
`
`read the petition in this case, it's clear as day
`
`that -- that in the petition Arista is arguing
`
`that the court services are disclosed by -- by
`
`the -- by a different element of -- of Amara.
`
`And -- and that's on page, I believe, 26 of the
`
`petition. And, so, now they're changing positions
`
`and arguing that -- and arguing that the packet
`
`classifiers of Amara disclose -- disclose the
`
`court services.
`
` So again, we believe that's a new
`
`argument that exceeds the scope permitted in the
`
`Petitioner's reply.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. All right. I
`
`think we've got enough of a flavor of what's going
`
`on.
`
` Petitioner, your response.
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Good afternoon, Your
`
`Honor. This is Linhong Zhang for Petitioner.
`
`I'll be addressing those arguments related to the
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`308 patent [sic].
`
` And for the 308 patent, I believe
`
`counsel raised two issues. One is the combination
`
`of AgentX and Mathney and Sandick on pages 11
`
`through 13 of our reply. And that goes -- just in
`
`terms of what we can address in our reply, the CFR
`
`specifically allows us to address arguments that
`
`were raised by the Patent Owner as part of this
`
`preliminary Patent Owner response as well as the
`
`Patent Owner response. So the combination of
`
`AgentX, Sandick and Mathney, that was addressed
`
`in -- on page 40 of the Patent Owner's preliminary
`
`reply, and our reply is just addressing the
`
`arguments that were raised there.
`
` With regard to the second point, which
`
`is about the CLI, and the CLI being the router
`
`configuration subsystem, that is an argument that
`
`was raised by Patent Owner -- Patent Owner
`
`response. And that could be found on page 29
`
`through 30 of the Patent Owner response which
`
`specifically says that Petitioner has not
`
`identified a router configuration subsystem.
`
` In our petition -- our original
`
`petition on pages 27 through 29, we address this
`
`issue, as well as Dr. Mohapatra's declaration on
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`26
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`page 90 to 94. And our reply on page 18 through
`
`21 is to verify any confusion that might have been
`
`raised by Patent Owner in their reply.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. I need to circle
`
`back to the first issue. This -- if I heard you
`
`correctly, you're replying to something that was
`
`in the preliminary response but on a ground that
`
`we didn't institute on. So help me out with why
`
`that's relevant in this trial anymore.
`
` MR. ZHANG: So it's our understanding
`
`that the Fifth Circuit has said that the board is
`
`not bound by any findings its made in an
`
`institution decision, and we understand that the
`
`board can change its mind with regard to claim
`
`construction, and claim construction is the issue
`
`that continue -- continuing.
`
` So we argue the claim construction
`
`issue as part of our reply, and we want to show
`
`the relevance of the claim construction to --
`
`to -- to show that it's not an academic exercise
`
`and that it impacts the grounds that the board
`
`would institute on.
`
` And I think if the board were to change
`
`its mind and adopt our claim construction, the
`
`rules specifically allow for the board to extend a
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(877) 479-2484
`
`27
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`schedule by six months and account for the
`
`grounds -- the rejected grounds and reconsider
`
`them. So that's why we included that information.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And I'm going to
`
`assume that that -- what you've just said there is
`
`not in any paper. There's no argument in any
`
`paper that the consequence would be the claim
`
`would change; we would add a ground and then add
`
`times. Is that what you argued in your paper, or
`
`is that something we're getting on this call?
`
` MR. ZHANG: That's not something we
`
`said in our paper, but that's something that
`
`specifically -- we believe is specifically
`
`permitted by the rule.
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Well, why don't
`
`you just hold on for just a moment, and I'll be
`
`back to the call in just a moment.
`
` (Recess -- 2:37 p.m.)
`
` (After recess -- 2:40 p.m.)
`
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. This is Judge
`
`Moore back on the call. I think you were -- we
`
`had gone back for further explanation on your
`
`argument about the Matheny reference again. I
`
`think probably we should look at that, where the
`
`argument is right now. I me