throbber
Conference Call
`
`May 19, 2016
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`---------------------------------
` :
`TWILIO, INC., :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` v. : IPR2016-00450
` :
`TELESIGN CORPORATION, : and
` :
` Patent Owner. : IPR2016-00451
` :
`---------------------------------
`
` The telephonic conference in the
`
`above-entitled matter convened at 1:31 p.m. on
`
`Thursday, May 19, 2016, and the proceedings
`
`being taken down by stenotype and transcribed by
`
`Catherine B. Crump, a Notary Public in and for the
`
`District of Columbia.
`
`BEFORE:
`
` HON. KIMBERLY McGRAW
`
` HON. SALLY MEDLEY
`
` HON. JUSTIN ARBES
`
` Patent Trial and Appeal Board Judges
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`001
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 2016
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES: (Telephonically)
`
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
` BRITTON DAVIS, ESQ.
`
` WAYNE STACY, ESQ.
`
` Cooley, LLP
`
` 380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`
` Broomfield, Colorado 80021
`
` (720) 566-4000
`
` bdavis@cooley.com
`
` wstacy@cooley.com
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
` JESSE CAMACHO, ESQ.
`
` ELENA K. McFARLAND, ESQ.
`
` Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
`
` 2555 Grand Boulevard
`
` Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`
` (816) 474-6550
`
` jcamacho@shb.com
`
` emcfarland@shb.com
`
`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
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`002
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 2016
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: This is Judge McGraw on the
`
`line. With me is Judge Medley and Judge Arbes for
`
`the conference call for IPR2016-00450 and
`
`IPR2016-465, Twilio Corporation v. TeleSign
`
`Corporation.
`
` I would like to begin with a roll call. Who
`
`is on the line on behalf of petitioner?
`
` MR. DAVIS: For petitioner, you have Wayne
`
`Stacy, lead counsel, and Britton Davis. I'll be
`
`appearing as backup counsel for Twilio.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Who is speaking? Mr. Davis?
`
` MR. DAVIS: That's correct.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: And on behalf of patent owner?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes, Your Honor. This is Jesse
`
`Camacho and Elena McFarland.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: So as I understand it, there
`
`are two issues: First, Petitioner is seeking
`
`permission to file a reply to address whether the
`
`patent owner has met its burden to show patents at
`
`issues or titles that claim priority to their parent.
`
` This is the petitioner's issue. Petitioner,
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`003
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`do you want to quickly address your request?
`
` MR. DAVIS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` So this is Britton Davis, and really what we
`
`would like is the board's guidance on how to deal
`
`with the priority date issue that was raised in the
`
`patent owner's preliminary response.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Mr. Davis, I'm sorry to
`
`interrupt you. I forgot to ask is there a court
`
`reporter on the line?
`
` MR. DAVIS: Yes, there is, on behalf of
`
`Petitioner.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Then I'd ask that you provide
`
`a copy of the transcript of this proceeding when
`
`possible.
`
` MR. DAVIS: We would be happy to do so.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: And I'm sorry to interrupt.
`
`Continue.
`
` MR. DAVIS: No problem.
`
` So what Petitioner would like is the board's
`
`guidance on how to address the priority date issue
`
`that was raised in the patent owner's preliminary
`
`response and regarding the petitioned claims, ability
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`004
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`to claim priority back to the parent application.
`
` We don't think that this issue needs to be
`
`addressed at institution and it's properly decided in
`
`the final written decision, but if the board is
`
`inclined to deal with the issue at institution, we
`
`would like to be able to file a short reply
`
`addressing the legal requirements, the standard, and
`
`the burden that Patent Owner must meet to show it's
`
`entitled to the earlier priority date.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Patent Owner, would you like
`
`to comment?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Sure, Your Honor. This is
`
`Jesse Camacho, and we did understand the petitioner's
`
`request to be a request for a reply. So to help
`
`confirm that we were looking at this correctly, we
`
`looked and we identified -- I think there's about 108
`
`cases that address a request for a petitioner to
`
`reply to a preliminary response.
`
` Fifty-one of those were granted, really only
`
`about 30 because many of the cases were related. All
`
`of those deal with threshold issues, things like
`
`proper service, whether there's Section 315(b) time
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`005
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`bar, that sort of thing.
`
` There were 18 instances that were really just
`
`one instance that the court requested additional
`
`briefing regarding a threshold issue of service of
`
`the complaint.
`
` The last bucket is where the majority is.
`
`There were 39 instances where the request was denied.
`
`That's where we would say Twilio's request falls in.
`
`Those requests, there are similar requests before the
`
`board, things like addressing alleged misstatements,
`
`addressing case law mischaracterization, addressing
`
`evidentiary issues, and things like that.
`
` A couple of relevant IPRs that might help
`
`guide the board, one is IPR2015-1035. Again,
`
`IPR2015-1035, that one dealt with a request to
`
`address the legal standard of printed publications.
`
`There, the board replied that was just a request for
`
`a reply and it's not warranted.
`
` The second one is kind of analogous. It's
`
`IPR2014-1432. There, the question was the petitioner
`
`wanted to reply to some comments that the patent
`
`owner made regarding whether a reference should enjoy
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`006
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`the earliest effective 102(e) date. Again, the board
`
`said that that submission would amount to a reply,
`
`which is not allowed.
`
` So the common themes that we see and six
`
`reasons why we think the board should deny this
`
`request is, first, replies to a preliminary response,
`
`they're not allowed on substantive issues, and the
`
`petitioner, Twilio, hasn't provided a sufficient
`
`reason to deviate from normal practice.
`
` The second reason would be that 35 U.S.C.
`
`Section 324(a) requires an institution be granted
`
`based on the information presented in the petition,
`
`not in the petition plus a reply.
`
` The third is that the issue to be addressed
`
`here is not a threshold issue. It's nothing like a
`
`real party in interest or whether there's some time
`
`bar.
`
` The fourth is that Petitioner is essentially
`
`asking for additional basis to further develop its
`
`argument.
`
` The fifth and sixth are kind of related.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: I'm going to interrupt you
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`007
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`here. We agree. I do treat Petitioner's request as
`
`a request for authorization to file a reply and that
`
`request is denied. Filing a reply here is not
`
`necessary. We're aware of --
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Your Honor, this --
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Excuse me? Yes?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: I apologize for interrupting.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: You can continue. Identify
`
`yourself first.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: This is Jesse Camacho again for
`
`the patent owner. We had a second issue that we
`
`wanted to address, but, again, I didn't know if you
`
`had completed your sentence.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: I was saying that the request
`
`for authorization to file a reply is denied.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Your Honor, this is Jesse
`
`Camacho again for the patent owner.
`
` The issue that we would like to address is
`
`the E-mail itself that was sent. We think the E-mail
`
`that was sent was an improper ex parte communication.
`
`This E-mail should not have been sent in view of Rule
`
`42.5(b). That rule does not allow or prohibits
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`008
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`E-mails from being sent or any communication with the
`
`board unless both parties have had an opportunity to
`
`be involved in the communication.
`
` Here, we were not allowed to see the E-mail
`
`that was sent, and the issue in the E-mail is
`
`substantive in nature. It comments on our reply. It
`
`characterizes what we said. It comments on lack on
`
`evidence.
`
` The problem is it could be viewed as -- you
`
`know, when we looked into this and we found there
`
`were 39 cases that seemed on point, our concern was
`
`that there might be an attempt to do an end run
`
`around this procedure and actually get argument or we
`
`weren't sure we -- there's one IPR that seems to be
`
`on point that if it's helpful to the board, it's
`
`IPR2012-0035. Again, IPR2012-0035 is Nissan v.
`
`Collins.
`
` What happened in that case was someone from
`
`the petitioner contacted the board. They didn't copy
`
`opposing counsel. I know counsel for Twilio did.
`
` They did ask for a call. The thing is,
`
`though, they commented substantively. The E-mail was
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`009
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`substantive and the board said even if opposing
`
`counsel were copied, the E-mail still would have been
`
`improper because it contained argument against an
`
`analysis of the preliminary response, and the board
`
`described the E-mail as appearing to be an improper
`
`attempt to file a reply, which was not allowed.
`
` So it's on point in that regard, and we know
`
`some cases allow a reply to an E-mail. We're not
`
`looking for that. We don't want to burden the board
`
`with any additional paper. We would just like this
`
`issue addressed and then, really, for all intents and
`
`purposes, the E-mail to not really have any bearing
`
`before the board.
`
` MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, if I may respond.
`
`This is Britton Davis with Cooley for Petitioner.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Yes.
`
` MR. DAVIS: So we disagree with Mr. Camacho's
`
`characterizations. I provided an E-mail laying out
`
`the basis for our request to Mr. Camacho in advance
`
`of requesting the call with the board and sought his
`
`availability for this call.
`
` After he provided that, then I confirmed in
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`010
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`an E-mail that I would be sending the board the
`
`communication and sent the communication, which is
`
`very close to the E-mail that I provided to Mr.
`
`Camacho ahead of time.
`
` So we think that his characterizations of
`
`conduct are improper or inaccurate and we also think
`
`that the E-mail is a fair characterization setting
`
`out only the bases that we were requesting the reply
`
`on, didn't go into addressing the merits of subject
`
`matter.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Okay. As it seems both
`
`parties are aware, communications to the board cannot
`
`be ex parte. Both parties have to be copied on the
`
`E-mail and they should not contain any substantive
`
`arguments in the E-mail. To the extent any such
`
`arguments are included in the E-mail, they will not
`
`play a role in any decision to institute or not
`
`institute.
`
` There was one more issue that the petitioner
`
`did raise in the E-mail, which is seeking guidance.
`
`It seems like you're requesting, and perhaps you can
`
`clarify if you're asking if you should file a motion
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`011
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`to submit supplemental information or you're asking
`
`should you wait until the reply.
`
` I guess I'll let you address what it is
`
`exactly that you were asking the court to do, the
`
`board to do.
`
` MR. STACY: Your Honor, this is lead counsel,
`
`Wayne Stacy. I think you've answered our question.
`
`The primary purpose of setting the call up and asking
`
`all of this is there's enough opinions out there
`
`where the board has criticized petitioners and patent
`
`owners for waiting too long to raise important
`
`issues, and we just wanted to make sure that we
`
`raised it here because we couldn't find any law on
`
`point.
`
` So I think your initial decision on the reply
`
`answers everything we need, and proposed institution,
`
`not meaning to be presumptive, but the normal reply
`
`brief will be where this would be addressed.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Well, I think asking whether
`
`or not you should address an issue through
`
`supplemental information or through a reply brief,
`
`it's really addressed after institution. So I think
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`012
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`you should wait until the case is instituted or not
`
`instituted, and if the case is instituted, you can
`
`revisit this issue again.
`
` MR. STACY: All right. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Are there any further issues
`
`on behalf of Petitioner?
`
` MR. DAVIS: If I could impose upon you for
`
`just one moment, we sent the E-mail to the board and
`
`there's always the intention on giving information to
`
`allow the board to be meaningfully prepared and then
`
`not putting substantive arguments in. I know the
`
`black letter law.
`
` In your opinion, did the E-mail we sent skew
`
`too far one way or the other? This is just for
`
`future reference. I want to make sure we're on the
`
`right side going forward, if you're willing to
`
`provide that input.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: We could offer a comment if it
`
`would help the board.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Sure.
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Your Honor, in that same case,
`
`that Nissan case, the IPR -- this is Jesse Camacho --
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`013
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 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
`
`IPR2012-0035, Page 28, Footnote 2 provides an example
`
`of an appropriate request for a conference, and it
`
`says it would have said something along the lines of
`
`Nissan requests a conference call to raise an issue
`
`of incorrect facts.
`
` So to the extent that's helpful as providing
`
`a sample type of E-mail, that would be one.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: Well, I think that E-mails to
`
`the board should have enough information in them so
`
`that we know what issue is going to be raised, but,
`
`again, it should not include any arguments or
`
`substantive presentation of argument or facts.
`
` So it is a fine line, but we'll figure it out
`
`as we go along; but for now, I'm not going to do
`
`anything about this E-mail. So I'm not -- to the
`
`extent there are any arguments in that E-mail, they
`
`will not play a role in the decision to institute.
`
` MR. DAVIS: Thank you for the guidance.
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: You're welcome.
`
` Are there any other issues?
`
` MR. CAMACHO: Nothing from Patent Owner.
`
` MR. DAVIS: None from Petitioner.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`014
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`May 19, 2016
`
`Page 15
`
` JUDGE McGRAW: An order will follow shortly
`
`summarizing and discussing what was decided in this
`
`call, and this call is concluded.
`
` Thank you.
`
` [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the conference call
`
`concluded.]
`
`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
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`015
`
`

`
`CERTTFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
`
`I, CATHERINE B. CRUMP, the officer before
`
`I^¡as taken, do hereby
`
`whom the f oregoing deposition
`the witness whose testimony appears in
`that
`testify
`the foregoing deposition $/as duly sÌ^torn by me; that
`the testimony of said witness l¡tas taken by me
`reduced to
`
`stenographically and thereafter
`
`that said deposition
`typewriting under my direction;
`is a true record of the testimony given by said
`related
`I am neither counsel for,
`that
`witness;
`nor employed by any of the parties
`to the action
`l^tas taken; and further,
`which this deposition
`am not a rel-ative or employee of any attorney or
`counsel employed by the parties hereto nor
`in the outcome
`fj.nancially or otherwise interested
`
`to,
`
`in
`
`that
`
`I
`
`of
`
`the action.
`
`CATHERINE B
`Notary PubI
`District of
`: October
`
`. CRUMP
`
`ic in and for the
`
`Columbia
`
`3 1, 20L7
`
`My Commíssion Expires
`
`Twilio's Exhibit No. 1022
`IPR2016-00450
`
`016

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket