`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------x
`AMX, LLC and DELL, Inc.
` Petitioner,
` Case Nos.
` vs. IPR2016-00569
` IPR2016-00574
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------x
`AMX, LLC,
` Petitioner,
` Case Nos.
` IPR2016-00572
` vs. IPR2016-00573
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------x
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` Wednesday, April 13, 2016
` 4:00 p.m.
`B E F O R E:
` PANEL:
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK
` JUDGE EASTHOM
` JUDGE ANDERSON
`Reported by:
`Jennifer Ocampo-Guzman, CRR, CLR
`JOB NO. 106249
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-1
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` April 13, 2016
` 4:00 p.m.
`
` Telephonic proceedings, pursuant
`to notice, before Jennifer
`Ocampo-Guzman, a Certified Real-Time
`Shorthand Reporter and a Notary Public
`of the State of New York.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-2
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
` Attorneys for the Petitioner AMX
` 227 West Monroe Street
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` BY: AMOL PARIKH, ESQ.
` BRENT HAWKINS, ESQ.
`
` NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
` Attorneys for Petitioner Dell for
` IPR2016-00569 and IPR2016-00574
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard
` Austin, Texas 78701
` BY: GILBERT GREENE, ESQ.
`
` ///
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-3
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
` THOMPSON & KNIGHT
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1722 Routh Street
` Dallas, Texas 75201
` BY: JUSTIN COHEN, ESQ.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-4
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: This is Judge
`Weinschenk. Case numbers IPR2016-00569,
`00572, 00573 and 00574. Who do we have
`on the line for petitioner?
` MR. PARIKH: Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. This is Amol Parikh from
`McDermott, Will & Emery on behalf of
`petitioner AMX, and with me is my
`colleague, Brent Hawkins, also with
`McDermott.
` MR. GREENE: And, Your Honor, this
`is Bert Greene, who is a backup counsel
`on the -- for the petitioner on the 569
`and 574 cases.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Do we have
`different groups of petitioners then for
`the different cases?
` MR. PARIKH: That's correct, Your
`Honor. This is again Amol Parikh.
` AMX is a petitioner in each of the
`four cases. Dell is a co-petitioner in
`the 569 case and the 574 case.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And who
`do we have on the line for patent owner?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-5
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` MR. COHEN: Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. This is Justin Cohen of Thompson
`& Knight representing the patent owner
`in all petitions.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And it's my
`understanding that the patent owner
`retained the court reporter.
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor. We've reached an agreement with
`petitioners to have a court reporter for
`each board proceeding, and we have hired
`them for this particular proceeding.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Well,
`I'll ask you that when the transcript of
`the call is available, that you will be
`the party responsible for filing this
`transcript as an exhibit.
` MR. COHEN: Yes, Your Honor. We
`can handle that.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right. Before we get started, since we
`do have a court reporter on the line,
`I'll remind all the parties to please
`identify themselves before speaking, so
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-6
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`that the court reporter can keep the
`transcript clear.
` Patent owner requested this call.
`I believe there's two issues that patent
`owner has identified. The first one has
`to do with the recent rule amendment, so
`why don't we start with that and why
`doesn't the patent owner tell us what
`the issue is.
` MR. COHEN: Thank you, Your Honor,
`Justin Cohen, again for the patent
`owner.
` The new rules are going to be
`effective as of May 1st. After May 1st
`the patent owner has preliminary
`responses due, and the question is
`whether or not the new rule amendment
`applies to petitioner, to patent owner's
`preliminary responses, particularly
`regarding the length and the ability to
`provide additional evidence.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So is this just
`a question, or do the parties have
`positions on this?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-7
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` MR. COHEN: I believe it's just a
`question. Patent owner's position is
`that this doesn't seem to be anything
`restrictive in the rules, suggesting
`that they should not apply, I believe
`our position is that they likely should
`apply, but for the most part, it's a
`question.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Does
`petitioner have any view on this issue?
` MR. PARIKH: Your Honor, this is
`the Amol Parikh for the petitioner.
` We do not have a position on this
`issue. It's our understanding from the
`reading of the rules that I believe the
`new rules do apply, but we accept
`whatever the panel is willing to
`provide.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Well, it
`doesn't really sound like there's a
`dispute to resolve that we have before
`us right now, but I will direct you to a
`portion of the Federal Register
`Publication that states that the rule
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-8
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`applies to all AIA petitions filed on or
`after the effective date, and to any
`ongoing AIA preliminary proceeding or
`trial before the office.
` So under that rule, it would seem
`to be that if your preliminary response
`is due after the effective date of the
`rules, then the amendment should apply.
` MR. COHEN: This is Justin Cohen.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. Is
`there anything else with regard to the
`rule amendments?
` MR. COHEN: Nothing from the patent
`owner, Your Honor.
` MR. PARIKH: Nothing from the
`petitioner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right.
` The second issue that I believe the
`patent owner identified is, there is a
`request for a motion, to file a motion
`for additional discovery. So why don't
`we take that issue up now.
` MR. COHEN: Justin Cohen, again for
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-9
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`the patent owner, Your Honor.
` We're prepared to make a showing of
`the Garmin factors that we can make a
`sufficient showing entitling us to
`additional discovery on the real
`parties-in-interest, and particularly
`that the petitioners, AMX and Dell, have
`failed to identify all of the relevant
`real parties-in-interest for these
`proceedings. And if we are correct, and
`if that discovery shows that some of the
`real parties-in-interest have in fact
`filed declaratory judgment actions, that
`these positions should be barred and
`terminated.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Why don't you
`give me sort of a high level view of
`what the issue is here. What real
`parties-in-interest do you believe
`weren't identified and what sort of
`evidence do you have suggesting that
`they are real parties-in-interest?
` MR. COHEN: Yes, now with the
`caveat, Your Honor, that none of this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-10
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`evidence currently stated, this is sort
`of a preview and a high level, and none
`of it standing alone would be sufficient
`under the board's case law to prove our
`case, but to go through at a very high
`level, starting with AMX. AMX is
`represented by McDermott, Will & Emery,
`who is also representing Hewlett
`Packard, HP, in another action in
`California, also involving ChriMar and
`ChriMar's patents, but a different
`patent.
` HP has filed declaratory judgment
`action in Detroit, in Federal court,
`asserting invalidity of all of these
`patents. One of those patents happens
`to be the '019 patent in which AMX is
`not accused of infringing. So AMX has
`actually filed a petition, an IPR
`petition, on a patent that they are not
`yet accused of infringing. The other
`issue with AMX is that --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Wait. Stop.
`Hold on a second. I just want to make
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-11
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`sure I understand here.
` Which patent are you referring to
`that AMX has not been accused of
`infringing?
` MR. COHEN: It's the '019 patent,
`at petition ending 572.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And what
`you're telling me is that HP has filed a
`declaratory judgment action requesting a
`ruling of invalidity on that patent and
`AMX has filed a petition for inter
`partes' review of that same patent?
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And both AMX and
`HP are represented by the McDermott
`firm?
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor.
` In addition are using the same
`expert, Richard Seifert, or have been
`using him in past for issues involving
`ChriMar.
` And further to that point with AMX,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-12
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`there are possibilities that there are
`other real parties-in-interest, we know
`that AMX have in the past been
`indemnified by another party accused of
`infringement in a ChriMar case, which is
`Ruckus Wireless.
` So AMX sells, resells certain
`products provided by Ruckus, and in the
`past, Ruckus has indemnified and may
`still be indemnifying AMX.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And when you say
`that they've in the past indemnified
`AMX, you mean with respect to different
`patents and different cases?
` MR. COHEN: Correct.
` Well, with respect to the ongoing
`litigation involving ChriMar and AMX.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And are those
`same patents at issue in the litigation
`as they are here?
` MR. COHEN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And that was
`Ruckus Wireless?
` MR. COHEN: Correct.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-13
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Can you spell
`that for me?
` MR. COHEN: R-U-C-K-U-S.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right.
` MR. COHEN: There are other
`companies accused of infringement.
` So to Dell, for example, Dell is a
`reseller of a number of products made
`and provided by third parties. Several
`of those third parties are also
`defendants in various ChriMar cases and
`are being accused of infringement
`currently. Aruba Networks is one
`provider of products.
` Aruba was acquired by HP, I want to
`say, roughly a year and a half ago. We
`know that HP has requested
`indemnification from at least one
`supplier, and our assumption is they
`requested indemnification from all of
`their suppliers, which would include
`Aruba Networks now owned by Hewlett
`Packard, by HP.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-14
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: You lost me
`quite a bit there.
` You're telling me that Dell has
`requested indemnification from Aruba
`which is owned by HP?
` MR. COHEN: I don't know that for
`certain yet. What I know for certain is
`that Dell has requested indemnification
`from one of the patent owner's
`licensees, and that was turned over to
`us, basically to confirm the products
`provided by our licensee are not accused
`and are licensed.
` Based on that evidence, we believe
`Dell has requested indemnification from
`each of their suppliers, one of them
`would be HP through Aruba Networks.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And you think
`that the parties that made potential
`indemnitors are the real
`parties-in-interest.
` MR. COHEN: That's correct, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And that they
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-15
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`have filed DJ actions?
` MR. COHEN: HP has. There's
`another round of potential indemnitors
`who are currently litigants and
`defendants in ChriMar litigation,
`Aerohive Networks being one, D-Link Inc.
`being another, and Juniper Networks.
` These are companies currently being
`accused of infringement for these same
`patents. They supply products to Dell,
`and we believe may be real
`parties-in-interest as well.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. COHEN: I should say, Your
`Honor, that there are others, but this
`is, you know, a high level overview of
`several.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And what
`exactly, what kind of discovery would
`you be asking for?
` MR. COHEN: We've sent the other
`side eight interrogatories and six
`document requests, mostly dealing with
`indemnification issues, but in addition,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-16
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`issues of who they have been
`communicating with and preparing and
`filing the IPRs, who has been assisting,
`who has been directing, and possibly who
`is controlling these particular
`petitions, who has the right to control
`these petitions.
` And similar, on the request for
`production, indemnity agreements, any
`tendering or acceptance of indemnity.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So do you have
`anything at this time that would
`indicate to you, other than the fact
`that some of these companies may be
`potential indemnitors, that they are in
`any way involved at all on these
`petitions?
` MR. COHEN: What we have so far is
`the commonality of counsel, commonality
`of the experts, you know, common
`issues --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: That's a
`separate issue, right? I don't think
`you're arguing that HP is an indemnitor,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-17
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`right?
` MR. COHEN: HP may be. And it's
`because they now own Aruba Networks and
`Aruba Networks is supplying products to
`Dell. Okay. So that indemnity
`obligation and possibly the accusation
`of infringement against HP would likely
`apply to Aruba Networks as well.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Outside
`of, sort of, commonality of counsel and
`experts, do we have anything else that
`would suggest that any of these parties
`were participating in the petition?
` MR. COHEN: At this time I don't
`believe I have direct evidence of that.
`I think we have circumstantial evidence.
`This is why we would like to request
`some additional discovery.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And if you were
`to file a motion for additional
`discovery, you would be asking to serve
`three interrogatories and six requests
`for production?
` MR. COHEN: That's correct.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-18
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right.
` Petitioner, would you like to
`respond to patent owner's request?
` MR. PARIKH: Yes, thank you, Your
`Honor. This is Amol Parikh for AMX, and
`I think Your Honor hit the nail on the
`head right there with, you know, this is
`speculation, and the fact that there are
`indemnity agreements, we don't dispute
`that, but that's not the issue.
` In every case there are probably
`indemnity obligations involving these
`products, but what, under the PTAB rules
`and case law is whether there is
`anything beyond speculation that would
`be uncovered regarding the either
`funding, direction, control or ability
`to exercise or direct the IPR
`proceeding; and I think as Mr. Cohen
`said or admitted, that there is
`absolutely no evidence to that effect
`here.
` The simple fact that there is a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-19
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`common expert, which is being used in
`these cases, the fact that there may be
`indemnification obligations, and the
`fact that McDermott may be representing
`with two separate teams, two
`different -- two different defendants,
`does not show that, you know, there is
`any direction, control or participation
`by other companies, or any evidence of
`it.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Let me ask you
`this: If most of patent owner's
`requests for discovery are just trying
`to sort out and see if there is an
`indemnification obligation here, whether
`they're requesting agreements or to see
`if there is any request for
`indemnification being made, would
`petitioner be willing to turn that over
`voluntarily?
` MR. PARIKH: Mr. Cohen referenced
`the interrogatories and the requests for
`production, and the way they've been
`currently drafted it, for example,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-20
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`identify all third parties you
`communicated with regarding
`indemnification, with regard to the
`litigation, any third party you
`communicated with regarding the IPRs,
`all indemnity agreements involving the
`accused products.
` So, you know, at this point, given
`what the requests are, they're
`incredibly broad, and we object to the
`requests as they're currently drafted.
` Because, you know, for example, the
`indemnity agreement involving these
`products, that could be certainly
`thousands, because it could components
`of the products which are completely
`unrelated to anything involving the
`litigation.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Understood. If
`petitioner -- sorry -- if patent owner
`was able to put together a list of, say,
`you know, indemnification agreements
`with the four or five companies that
`they mentioned on this call, would that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-21
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`be something you would be able to turn
`over?
` MR. PARIKH: I think the issue is,
`Your Honor, the indemnification
`agreements are not relevant. What the
`relevant inquiry, at least our
`understanding of it is, is whether any
`third party has the right to control the
`activities in the IPR, and for that, we
`would be willing to say as to those
`documents, that it is our position that
`there are no documents. There are no
`third parties who have the right to
`control these IPR petitions, and there
`are no third parties which are providing
`any funding.
` In terms of, you know, all the
`indemnification agreements, I don't
`think that's relevant here. Because
`whether there is control of the IPR
`proceeding, and none of the
`indemnification agreements, there is no
`third party which has the right to
`control these IPR proceedings.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-22
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Yes, I
`understand your position that you don't
`believe that any of these parties are
`real parties-in-interest. I was just
`curious if, you know, if we were to
`satisfy patent owner's request to look
`into the issue a bit whether you would
`turn over these agreements so they could
`see what the relationship was, and I
`don't think you would be admitting in
`any way that there is control or
`anything like that by turning those
`over. It would just be a way to sort of
`in good faith provide some documents to
`patent owner to see if they can check
`the relationships to see if there is any
`issues there.
` MR. PARIKH: That particular issue
`I think we would have to confer on. I
`would have to talk to my clients about
`that so I'm not prepared to -- so if we
`can limit it to that. At least for AMX
`I don't believe there are any
`indemnification agreements. With HP,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-23
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`for example, which is one of the
`companies that Mr. Cohen referenced,
`sorry, again, you know, we're not in a
`position where the document doesn't
`exist, so I'm happy to -- it could be
`something that it doesn't exist, and my
`understanding is there is no such
`document and there would be nothing to
`turn over there.
` You know, but in terms of
`communications and, you know, all this
`other, I guess I would have to
`understand what the specific request
`would be.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Right, right.
`Okay. I think I understand petitioner's
`position.
` Patent owner, is there anything
`else you would like to add, and
`specifically with something what I just
`discussed with the petitioner work if
`you could identify, say, the five or six
`companies you're concerned about, and
`petitioner would just turn over the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-24
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`indemnification agreements, and you can
`go from there?
` MR. COHEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Justin Cohen.
` Unfortunately, just the agreements
`alone would not be sufficient evidence,
`and so we would actually need some
`additional discovery beyond those
`agreements, and just with the parties
`that we know about.
` Importantly, you know, in the Intel
`versus U.S. International Trade
`Commission, in the Federal Circuit,
`1991, talks about that indemnification
`in a party who is accepting the tender
`of indemnification may be enough to show
`privy, and therefore, it's real
`party-in-interest in this issue or
`privy.
` Now, while the agreements requiring
`one party to indemnify another may be
`precursor to proving that, we would need
`the additional discovery to show that
`these parties had accepted the tender of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-25
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`indemnification which requires us to
`have more discovery on the issue, the
`communications and the interrogatory
`responses.
` We put together our listing as to
`proposed discovery and sent it to the
`petitioners. We asked if there was any
`subset of that discovery that
`petitioners could agree, to which they
`said no.
` For AMX, if the answer is that is
`there is no document and there are no
`communications on this issue, it doesn't
`seem like there should be a dispute
`about allowing us to serve the discovery
`and receive those answers.
` So I think at this point, Your
`Honor, I'm unable to see narrowing,
`given the refusal to provide any
`discovery from petitioners, and I think
`we just need to move forward and file
`our motion to request the additional
`discovery.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Can you give me
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-26
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`a list again of what which companies you
`think may be the potential indemnitors
`that have either filed a DJ action or
`have been sued more than a year before
`the petition was filed?
` MR. COHEN: Yes, Your Honor. I
`would caveat that some of these parties
`have not been sued more than a year ago.
`But to identify them as a real
`party-in-interest is critical in
`determining the scope of the estoppel in
`litigation.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. COHEN: The listing includes
`Cisco, Hewlett Packard or HP.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Yes.
` MR. COHEN: Aruba Networks,
`Aerohive Networks, D-link -- that's, D
`dash, L-I-N-K -- Juniper Networks,
`Netgear; Trendnet, all one word,
`T-R-E-N-D-N-E-T; and Ruckus Wireless.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And you think
`these are all potential indemnitors of
`AMX or Dell?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-27
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` MR. COHEN: Or Dell.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. I think I
`understand the parties' positions here.
`I'm going to place you all on hold for a
`few minutes while I confer with the
`panel, and I will be back with you
`shortly.
` MR. PARIKH: Thank you, Your Honor.
` (Panel confers off the record.)
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. This
`is Judge Weinschenk again.
` I just wanted to clarify one point
`with patent owner, of that list of
`companies that you gave to me before we
`went on hold, are some of those, if they
`were added as RPIs, they would trigger a
`bar now and some of them would not?
` MR. COHEN: This is Justin Cohen.
`That's correct, Your Honor. If Cisco or
`HP were identified as a real
`party-in-interest that would trigger the
`bar now. Many of the others would not
`trigger a bar now. It would be relevant
`to the scope of the estoppel.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-28
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right.
` So I've conferred with the panel
`and what we're going to do here is we're
`going to authorize patent owner to file
`a motion for additional discovery. The
`motion will be limited to ten pages, and
`the motion will be due a week from
`today. So it will be due next
`Wednesday, April 20th.
` We're also going to authorize
`petitioner to file a response to the
`motion. The response will also be
`ten pages and it will be due a week
`after the motion. So it will be due
`April 27th.
` I'm going to remind patent owner
`that simply because we're authorizing
`the motion, it does not mean that we're
`granting the motion. Your motion will
`need to walk through the factors set
`forth in the Garmin v. QOSMOS case that
`I believe you're familiar with, if not,
`I can give you the cite. But two of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-29
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`main factors that I think these motions
`often turn on are that the party
`requesting discovery needs to show some
`evidence tending to show beyond
`speculation that something useful will
`be uncovered; and second that the
`request need to be responsibly tailored
`according to a genuine need.
` I'll also ask that the patent owner
`include as an exhibit with the motion
`the proposed discovery that they plan to
`serve.
` With that said, are there any
`questions from the patent owner?
` MR. COHEN: No, Your Honor. Thank
`you.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Are there any
`questions from the petitioner?
` MR. PARIKH: No, Your Honor. And
`this is Amol Parikh. No, Your Honor.
`Thank you.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All
`right. So we will issue an order
`confirming our authorization of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-30
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`
` TELEPHONE PROCEEDINGS
`motion and the page limits and the
`deadlines, but in case that doesn't go
`out for a day or two, you guys know when
`these things are due, and you can start
`working on them.
` I'm just going to put you on a
`brief hold again to make sure there is
`nothing else from the panel.
` (Panel confers off the record.)
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. This
`is Judge Weinschenk again. There is
`nothing further from the panel, and
`having no question from the parties, we
`can adjourn this call. Thank you all
`for your time and have a nice evening.
` MR. COHEN: Thank you.
` (Time noted: 4:34 p.m.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-31
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`STATE OF NEW YORK )
` : ss.
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
`
` I, Jennifer Ocampo-Guzman, a
` Notary Public within and for the State
` of New York, do hereby certify that the
` within is a true and accurate
` transcript of the proceedings taken on
` April 13, 2016.
` I further certify that I am not
` related to any of the parties to this
` action by blood or marriage and that I
` am in no way interested in the outcome
` of this matter.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
` hereunto set my hand this 14th day of
` April 2016.
`
` ________________________________
` JENNIFER OCAMPO-GUZMAN, CRR, CLR
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`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
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001-32
`IPR2016-00569 USPN 8,942,107