Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.; DISH )
`NETWORK, LLC; COMCAST )
`CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, )
`LLC; COX COMMUNICATIONS, )
`INC.; TIME WARNER CABLE )
`ENTERPRISES, LLC; VERIZON )
`SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS )
`GROUP, INC., )
` )
` Petitioner, ) IPR 2016-01020
` ) IPR 2016-01021
` -vs- )
` )
`TQ DELTA, LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had of the
`telephonic conference call of the
`above-entitled matter on the 6th of July, 2017,
`at the hour of 1:00 o'clock p.m. CST.
`
`BEFORE: HONORABLE TREVOR JEFFERSON
` HONORABLE KALYAN DESHPANDE
` HONORABLE SALLY MEDLEY
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`TQ Delta Exhibit 2016
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC
`IPR2016-01020
`
`1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`APPEARANCES:
` HAYNES & BOONE, LLP.
` BY: MR. DAVID L. McCOMBS
` David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
` and
` MR. THEODORE M. FOSTER
` Ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
` 2323 Victory Avenue - Suite 700
` Dallas, Texas 75219
` 214.651.5533,
` On behalf of the Petitioner Cisco
` Systems, Inc.;
`
` McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
` BY: MR PETER McANDREWS
` Pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
` MR. ANDREW KARP
` Akarp@mcandrews-ip.com
` MR. THOMAS WIMBISCUS
` Twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
` MR. RAGENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR
` Rchiplunkar@mcandrews-ip.com
` 500 West Madison Street - Suite 3400
` Chicago, Illinois 60661
` 312.775.8000,
` On behalf of the Patent Owner.
`
`Page 3
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. Let's
`start with appearances from Patent Owner
`counsel today.
` MR. McANDREWS: This is Peter McAndrews for
`Patent Owner Delta.
` MR. KARP: This is Andrew Karp from Patent
`Owner, along with Tom Wimbiscus and Ragendra
`Chiplunkar.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. And for
`Petitioner.
` MR. McCOMBS: This is David McCombs and
`Theo Foster for Petitioner Cisco.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Are there any other
`parties on the line?
` Which party requested the court
`reporter?
` MR. McANDREWS: Patent Owner.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you, Patent Owner.
`For the court reporter's aid, we will try to
`identify ourselves before speaking.
` We're here today for IPRs
`2016-1020 and 2016-1021.
` Is there someone else on the line
`that I did not identify -- did not identify
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`themselves?
` Okay. We'll get started. We
`received this because Patent Owner requested a
`call seeking routine, and in the alternative,
`additional discovery related to, I believe, the
`cross-examination of Petitioner's expert.
` So we'll start with the Patent
`Owner and hoping the Patent Owner will
`specifically address what type of discovery
`they are seeking and the basis for that
`discovery as succinctly as possible. Thank
`you.
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes, your Honor, this is
`Peter McAndrews for Patent Owner.
` As we briefly summarized in the
`email, Petitioner's expert, Dr. Tellado,
`prepared a MATLAB program to simulate the
`purported operation of the primary prior art
`reference. We'll call it Shively, prior art
`reference.
` He performed two simulations.
`One was for an 18,000-foot DSL line. The
`second simulation was for a 12,000-foot DSL
`line.
`
`Page 5
` The MATLAB script that he had
`written and the results for the 12,000-foot
`line were provided to the Patent Owner, along
`with the Petitioner's reply declaration.
` The MATLAB script and the results
`for the 18,000-foot line, however, were not
`provided.
` When asked during
`cross-examination --
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Just to clarify,
`this is cross -- you discovered the 18,000-foot
`line simulations from a deposition of Dr.
`Tellado --
` MR. McANDREWS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So
`the 12,000 -- the MATLAB script and the results
`for the 12,000-foot line had been provided with
`the reply declaration.
` On cross-examination, however, we
`learned that he had performed -- had written a
`MATLAB script and performed what he described
`as a preliminary simulation for an 18,000-foot
`line; however, on cross-examination, he was
`unable to remember certain details of that
`simulation.
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`2
`
`

`

`Page 6
` And the reason why we believe
`that his memory is a bit foggy on that
`simulation is because that simulation would, in
`fact, support Patent Owner's expert's opinion
`about the 18,000-foot line.
` Dr. Tellado was unable to recall
`the extent to which he had maintained records
`of that simulation.
` He was unable to recall the
`extent to which records were kept initially.
` He was unable to recall whether
`that script and the results -- and the results
`will typically be -- generate an array of
`numbers and then some graphs would be the
`result of the MATLAB simulation.
` He wasn't able to recall whether
`those were shared with anyone, including
`Petitioner's counsel.
` The reason why Patent Owner
`believes that this routine discovery is -- as a
`starting point, as I mentioned, we believe that
`script and the results would be contrary to
`positions taken by Petitioner and their expert.
` Additionally, Dr. Tellado
`
`Page 7
`
`testified in his reply declaration that it is
`only a line simulation using a script like -- a
`simulation like his MATLAB script that will
`provide an accurate and useful estimation of
`the behavior of the 18,000-foot cell line.
`And therefore we believe that it is routine
`discovery.
` We also believe in the
`alternative, it would satisfy the Interest of
`Justice standard for additional discovery.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. One
`clarifying question. So the 18,000-foot line
`issue was uncovered during cross-examination,
`correct?
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes, your Honor. And, in
`fact -- I'm sorry.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: No, go ahead. I'll let
`you finish.
` MR. McANDREWS: I'm sorry. I was just
`going to say, and when it came up, you know,
`the witness was asked questions about where the
`records were, and during the deposition, a
`request was made of Petitioner's counsel to
`provide a copy. We followed up with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`Page 8
`correspondence. And Petitioner's counsel has
`so far refused to provide any record or to, in
`fact, indicate whether or not records still
`exist.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Understood. That was
`going to be my next question. Was there some
`meeting or conferring between the counsel with
`respect to providing those records at the time?
`Were there any representations made by counsel
`that you recall?
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes. So during the
`deposition, Petitioner's counsel refused to
`confirm that those records will be provided and
`denied that they were -- that those records
`were in any event discoverable under any rule
`of the Board.
` Subsequently, there was
`correspondence on the topic, and Petitioner
`maintained that same position.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
` Secondly, is it your position that
`Dr. Tellado's reply declaration relied on the
`18,000-foot line simulation as part of its
`analysis?
`
`Page 9
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes, yes. It's both -- I'm
`sorry. Yes, so it's both his reply
`testimony -- so the reason why the 12,000-foot
`line comes up is Patent Owner's expert had
`provided testimony about the behavior of a
`Shively reference on an 18,000-foot line,
`because an 18,000-foot line or longer is
`referenced as the problem that Shively is
`attempting to solve.
` Petitioner came back and said two
`things. One, they said that why not do a
`12,000-foot loop, so they took the 12,000-foot
`loop to task. But at the same time, they take
`the position in their reply, and also their
`expert in the reply declaration takes the
`position, that Patent Owner's expert's analysis
`is flawed, and they use some other superlatives
`to describe how wrong it is, in fact, the
`Patent Owner's simulation -- that the Patent
`Owner's analysis of the 18,000-foot line.
` We believe that the 18,000-foot
`simulation performed by Dr. Tellado will be
`very much in line with the conclusions of Dr.
`Short. However -- well, let me add one other
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`Page 10
`thing. And this is actually something the
`Petitioner has raised with us.
` So the MATLAB script was provided
`to us. And, of course, we can take that script
`and plug in the right numbers ourselves. Have
`our own expert plug in the numbers and run that
`18,000-foot simulation, and we would get the
`results that we believe -- you know, and we
`have done it by the way, and we've gotten
`results that show that, in fact, Dr. Short's
`analysis was correct, and, in fact, the prior
`art doesn't have this problem that Petitioner
`claims.
` But in any event, we don't have
`the ability to get that into evidence now.
` So instead what we were hoping to
`show from discovery from Petitioner is that
`their own expert has, in fact, confirmed our
`expert's conclusions.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Understood.
` Let's turn to the Petitioner's
`counsel, Mr. McCombs, I believe.
` MR. McCOMBS: I'm going to turn this over
`to Mr. Foster.
`
`Page 11
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Mr. Foster, my first
`question is, same to you, which is, why isn't
`this, in your opinion, routine or additional
`discovery? And more importantly, why -- what
`is the basis for determining that you would not
`provide the 18,000-foot simulation information?
` MR. FOSTER: Thank you, Judge Jefferson.
`This is Mr. Foster.
` The Petitioner believes this is
`not an appropriate discovery request first and
`foremost because it's clear from Dr. Tellado's
`second declaration that was filed with
`Petitioner's reply that he did not rely on a
`simulation of an 18,000-foot scenario in
`expressing any of the opinions in his
`declaration.
` Regarding his analysis for why
`Patent Owner's expert used a -- an analysis of
`an 18,000-foot example, and in particular
`Patent Owner's expert use of what was called a
`Gaussian approximation is inappropriate.
` Dr. Tellado sets forth in great
`detail in paragraphs 16 to 29 of his
`declaration why he believes that analysis by
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`Page 12
`
`Patent Owner's expert is faulty and not
`reliable.
` In that analysis in his
`declaration, he does not use or reference any
`simulation.
` His analysis is purely based on a
`math and logic, for example.
` And so we don't believe there's
`-- and then turning to the cross-examination
`testimony, nowhere in that did Dr. Tellado
`state that he relied on an 18,000-foot
`simulation to come to any of the conclusions
`that he reached in this case, either expressed
`in his declaration or otherwise.
` And so because Dr. Tellado's not
`been shown to rely on what he termed a quick
`estimate that he ran, we don't believe that
`there's any need for discovery into that.
` And then picking up on the second
`point that Patent Owner --
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Before we move on, let me
`ask some clarifying questions.
` When was the MATLAB simulation of
`the 12,000-foot line provided to Patent Owner's
`
`Page 13
`counsel? Was it part of the reply declaration?
`I'm confused.
` You're making it sound like there
`is no simulation basis at all, yet clearly some
`information has been exchanged between the
`parties.
` MR. FOSTER: Yes, Judge. Let me clarify
`that.
` With Petitioner's reply, Dr.
`Tellado did provide a simulation for a
`12,000-foot scenario.
` The source code for that
`simulation was provided in Exhibit 1034 to
`Patent Owner's counsel.
` And the graph resulting from
`running Exhibit 1034 was included in Dr.
`Tellado's second declaration, which was Exhibit
`1026.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: So the declaration relies
`on one of these MATLAB simulations?
` MR. FOSTER: Yes.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: And during the
`cross-examination, there was some discussion on
`the 18,000-foot simulation. Clearly the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`4
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`parties are differing. Although I would
`implore you to close the gap yourselves, you're
`basically saying that you don't think he was --
`it was brought up in the context that would
`indicate that he's relied on it or used it to
`reach any conclusions that he testified to?
` MR. FOSTER: He relied on the 12,000-foot
`example where source code was provided.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Specifically the 18,000
`is what I'm talking about.
` The 18,000-foot was -- questions
`arose about it during the deposition, the
`cross-examination, and it's your position that
`that doesn't amount to a -- any reliance on his
`part for the past testimony or the testimony he
`gave at the deposition, right?
` MR. FOSTER: Correct. His declaration does
`not discuss any simulation of an 18,000-foot --
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: And your position is that
`his deposition does not discuss the 18,000-foot
`example in a way that -- or scenario in a way
`that shows that he's relied on it to reach his
`opinion?
` MR. FOSTER: That's correct. He did not
`
`Page 15
`rely on that 18,000-foot simulation in his
`declaration.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Continue.
` MR. FOSTER: And regarding his deposition
`testimony, he provided answers to all Patent
`Owner's questions about what he remembered with
`what that 18,000-foot simulation had showed.
`And there was -- there's no testimony that any
`of what that showed was inconsistent with his
`conclusions that Dr. Short used an
`approximation that was appropriate.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Let's turn back to
`Patent Owner. Counsel, briefly.
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes. Thank you, your
`Honor.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: And as brief as you can.
`I think we've honed in here. I understand we
`have the 18,000-foot scenario simulation. It
`was discussed without diving into the details
`in the deposition, which I confess to not
`having done. I've looked enough to know -- I
`think I understand the issues as you both
`presented them.
` I'm trying to figure out a way
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`Page 16
`forward, because I can tell you, at least on
`the first pass, there does seem to be
`some -- an open factual issue, which, I think,
`we might need to resolve before we can move
`forward.
` So, yes, Respondent. And I also
`want to hear a quick discussion about
`additional discovery, Mr. McAndrews, about why
`this should also fall under additional
`discovery.
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes, your Honor. Let me
`address the two final points made in reverse
`order.
` The last point made was that Dr.
`Tellado had testified to everything that he had
`remembered about the 18,000-foot loop that he
`called a quick estimate.
` It became painfully clear that he
`remembered a great deal about these simulations
`that had been performed just a few weeks prior,
`when we were talking about the 12,000-foot
`loop, but remembered very little about the
`18,000-foot loop.
` Let me just read a very short
`
`Page 17
`
`section of his testimony --
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: I want to stop you there.
`I'm going to stop you, because I mean I don't
`think I'm going to be able to bridge the gap
`between the parties.
` If we need to read it, I'm sure I
`can read it. Judge Deshpande and Judge Medley
`and I will read it in a brief sometime soon, if
`we get that far.
` But I'm trying to at least
`understand -- that's the crystalized dispute
`here. You claim that the parties had
`clearly -- Dr. Tellado relied on the 18,000, or
`at least performed it, relied on it, and to the
`extent that it's contrary, you would argue it
`falls under routine discovery, even if not
`contrary to positions held by Petitioner, and
`testimony from Dr. Tellado you would argue it's
`additional discovery given the discussion that
`was raised in the cross-examination deposition.
`Is that fairly accurate or something else I
`need to --
` MR. McANDREWS: That states it perfectly,
`your Honor. Thank 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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`5
`
`

`

`Page 18
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: I don't expect to be
`perfect. Feel free to chime in.
` So one thing I need to -- I want
`to further explore with you, Patent Owner, is
`whether -- how do you know -- I mean the level
`of inconsistency of this 18,000-foot line
`scenario/simulation, I understand Petitioner's
`view is that it's not contrary and is not
`germane to his opinion.
` I'm wondering where we get this
`information from? How can we judge whether
`it's inconsistent?
` MR. McANDREWS: Well, the way to judge
`whether it's inconsistent would be to -- let's
`see. So I'm tying to think what's in the
`record that would allow -- the problem is
`that we don't have anything yet in the record,
`because we were not able to -- you know, this
`level of detailed information by the Petitioner
`did not come in until its reply, so we did not
`have a chance to address that.
` So showing how inconsistent it is
`would be a difficult thing based on the
`existing record.
`
`Page 19
`
` There is a single exhibit,
`however, that was a copy of the output, the
`simulation output, as performed by Patent
`Owner's expert that was placed in front of
`Petitioner's expert, and we attempted to elicit
`testimony that he recognized that -- the form
`of the graphs, he recognized the script that
`was done according to his MATLAB script, and
`tried to get him to provide testimony about
`whether the exhibit looked accurate, and he
`refused to do so. He would not comment on
`whether it appeared accurate, even within a
`matter of degree, let alone quantitative.
` But that graph, if I can point it
`out to you, would then explain to you what was
`shown by that graph would show how inconsistent
`the results are compared to both the
`12,000-foot loop -- so the testimony about the
`12,000-foot loop and the testimony about the
`18,000-foot loop provided by Dr. Tellado.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Thank you.
` Petitioner's counsel, clearly I
`want to understand your position. Make sure
`we're on the same page here, which is 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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 20
`certainly say that it's not -- Dr. Tellado's
`18,000-foot scenario estimate, whatever it is,
`is not inconsistent with any position he's
`taken, but I want to be more pointed. Is there
`a simulation or some information Dr. Tellado
`performed that has not been provided to Patent
`Owner?
` MR. FOSTER: Judge Jefferson, this is Theo
`Foster.
` No, we don't believe that there
`is anything Dr. Tellado has relied on for his
`analysis that's not been provided to the Patent
`Owner.
` As Patent Owner's counsel just
`acknowledged, Patent Owner was able to use the
`source code that Dr. Tellado provided in
`Exhibit 1034. They were free to make
`modifications to that, to run their own
`scenarios of interest to them, two for example,
`and modify it to input parameters for an
`18,000-foot line if they thought that was
`interesting, and to ask Dr. Tellado questions
`about that.
` Regarding the particular approach
`
`Page 21
`that they took, the exhibit that Patent Owner's
`counsel just referenced is actually Exhibit
`2011, and Patent Owner has not provided the
`source code that produced that to Petitioner's
`counsel.
` The source code that they
`provided in deposition, which they alleged went
`with that, in fact in deposition was shown that
`it was impossible that that source code could
`produce this route.
` So we don't know where that draft
`came from, and we don't know what route the
`source code they produced would produce.
` So, you know, in terms of Patent
`Owner's suggestion that they've not had an
`opportunity to respond to Dr. Tellado's
`simulation, that they haven't had an
`opportunity to introduce their own evidence on
`alternative scenario is, frankly, not entirely
`accurate.
` They have had an opportunity.
`And it appears that they're really seeking a
`second opportunity, perhaps, to fix some of the
`missteps from their preparations for Dr.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`6
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`Tellado's second deposition.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. We're going to end
`the discussion there, and I'm going to ask the
`parties to hold the line while I confer with
`Judge Deshpande, and we will get back to you
`shortly, hopefully with some direct action or
`conclusion, possibly with some additional
`questions.
` Please hold the line. Is that
`okay for Petitioner to remain?
` MR. FOSTER: Yes. Thank you.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: And, Patent Owner, would
`you also remain on the line?
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you, and we'll be
`right back.
` (Brief pause.)
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay. Good afternoon.
`We're back on the record.
` We're going to authorize briefing
`on this issue with a brief from the Patent
`Owner as to why this was either routine
`discovery under Rule 42.51(b)(1)(iii),
`specifically. And also if you're addressing
`
`Page 23
`additional discovery, you must address it in a
`tailored fashion the Garmin factors that are
`applicable in this situation.
` Both parties have appeared before
`us before, so I think you understand where the
`Garmin factors come from, although I can give
`you cases if you're interested.
` So let's start with Patent
`Owner's counsel. Do you understand at least as
`outlined here what we're looking for?
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes, your Honor. Just one
`question, will a follow-up order providing case
`numbers and date --
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: That's what we're going
`to work on here. Very quickly, how many pages
`do you think you would request at least to
`provide --
` MR. McANDREWS: I believe it could be
`addressed in five pages or less.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: I'm impressed by the
`brevity. How about seven pages?
` MR. McANDREWS: Sure.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: And then the parties --
`clearly the Petitioner will have a chance to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`Page 24
`respond. I'm thinking due dates -- again,
`since we are steaming toward a trial here, I
`think due dates within a week. So a week from
`today. Let's call it a week from tomorrow.
`And then the following week, so July 21st for
`the reply. On or before the 21st for reply
`from the Petitioner.
` We are not envisioning any need
`for a reply from Patent Owner on this issue, so
`the parties should govern themselves
`accordingly.
` Recognize all the issues, I think
`as you described them, but certainly you have
`to make the case with the record we have today.
` Petitioner, do you understand
`what we outlined here? Do you have any
`questions?
` MR. McCOMBS: Yes, we understand, your
`Honor. No questions.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. And, Patent
`Owner's counsel, so seven pages no later
`-- we'll get an order out hopefully today, if
`not, by tomorrow morning, and you can govern
`yourselves accordingly until that time with a
`
`Page 25
`due date that will be a week from tomorrow, and
`a -- I think, as I said, specifically
`addressing the Rule 42.51(b), and as they apply
`specifically tailored to this case the Garmin
`factors that are applicable for additional
`discovery.
` So, Patent Owners, is that
`understood?
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes, understood.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Any questions?
` MR. McANDREWS: No questions.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: As part of the order,
`we'll ask that -- the Patent Owner counsel, I
`believe, requested the court reporter. Provide
`a -- file the deposition transcript -- sorry.
`File the court reporter's transcript as an
`exhibit in this case. That will also be in the
`order, but that can be done at any time before
`or during the -- before the papers are filed,
`if they are available.
` So I think with that, we're
`adjourned unless there are any questions.
` Okay. We are adjourned. Thank
`you, parties, for your time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`7
`
`

`

`Page 26
` MR. McANDREWS: Thank you.
` MR. McCOMBS: Thank you.
`
` (Record closed at 1:33 p.m. CST.)
`
`Page 27
`
`STATE OF ILLINOIS )
` ) SS:
`COUNTY OF C O O K )
`
` MAUREEN A. WOODMAN, C.S.R., being first
`duly sworn, says that she is a court reporter
`doing business in the City of Chicago; that she
`reported in shorthand the proceedings had at
`the hearing of said cause; that the foregoing
`is a true and correct transcript of her
`shorthand notes, so taken as aforesaid, and
`contains all the proceedings of said hearing.
`
` MAUREEN A. WOODMAN,CSR
` License No. 084.002740
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 27)
`Thompson Court Reporters, Inc
`thompsonreporters.com
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`56789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`8
`
`

`

`A
`ability 10:15
`able 6:16 17:4 18:18
`20:15
`about 6:5 7:21 9:5
`14:10,12 15:6
`16:7,8,16,19,21
`16:22 19:9,18,19
`20:23 23:21
`above-entitled 1:14
`according 19:8
`accordingly 24:11
`24:24
`accurate 7:4 17:21
`19:10,12 21:20
`acknowledged
`20:15
`action 22:6
`actually 10:1 21:2
`add 9:24
`additional 4:5 7:10
`11:3 16:8,9 17:19
`22:7 23:1 25:5
`Additionally 6:24
`address 4:9 16:12
`18:21 23:1
`addressed 23:19
`addressing 22:24
`25:3
`adjourned 25:22,23
`aforesaid 27:10
`afternoon 3:1 22:18
`again 24:1
`ahead 7:17
`aid 3:19
`Akarp@mcandre...
`2:10
`all 13:4 15:5 24:12
`27:11
`alleged 21:7
`allow 18:16
`alone 19:13
`along 3:7 5:3
`also 7:8 9:14 16:6,9
`22:13,24 25:17
`alternative 4:4 7:9
`21:19
`although 14:1 23:6
`amount 14:14
`an 4:22 5:21 6:13
`7:4 9:6,7 11:10,14
`11:18,19 12:11
`14:18 15:10 16:3
`20:20 21:15,17,21
`24:22 25:16
`analysis 8:24 9:16
`
`9:20 10:11 11:17
`11:18,24 12:3,6
`20:12
`Andrew 2:10 3:6
`answers 15:5
`any 3:13 8:2,9,15,15
`10:14 11:15 12:4
`12:12,18 14:6,14
`14:18 15:8 20:3
`24:8,16 25:10,18
`25:22
`anyone 6:17
`anything 18:17
`20:11
`APPEAL 1:1
`appearances 2:1 3:2
`appeared 19:12
`23:4
`appears 21:22
`applicable 23:3
`25:5
`apply 25:3
`approach 20:24
`appropriate 11:10
`15:11
`approximation
`11:21 15:11
`are 3:13 4:10 14:1
`19:17 23:2 24:2,8
`25:5,19,20,22,23
`argue 17:15,18
`arose 14:12
`array 6:13
`ARRIS 1:5
`art 4:18,19 10:12
`as 4:11,11,15 5:21
`6:20,21 8:23 9:8
`15:16,16,22 19:3
`20:14 22:22 23:9
`24:13 25:2,3,12
`25:16 27:10
`ask 12:22 20:22
`22:3 25:13
`asked 5:8 7:21
`at 1:15 8:8 9:13
`13:4 14:16 16:1
`17:10,14 23:9,16
`25:18 26:4 27:7
`attempted 19:5
`attempting 9:9
`authorize 22:20
`available 25:20
`Avenue 2:5
`
`B
`back 9:10 15:12
`
`22:5,16,19
`based 12:6 18:23
`basically 14:3
`basis 4:10 11:5 13:4
`be 6:13,14,22 8:6,13
`9:22 16:2 17:4
`18:1,14,23 20:4
`22:15 23:18 25:1
`25:17,18
`became 16:18
`because 4:3 6:3 9:7
`11:11 12:15 16:1
`17:3 18:18
`been 5:16 12:16
`13:5 16:20 20:6
`20:12
`before 1:1,16 3:20
`12:21 16:4 23:4,5
`24:6 25:18,19
`behalf 2:7,15
`behavior 7:5 9:5
`being 27:4
`believe 4:5 6:1,21
`7:6,8 9:21 10:8,22
`12:8,17 20:10
`23:18 25:14
`believes 6:20 11:9
`11:24
`between 8:7 13:5
`17:5
`bit 6:2
`Board 1:1 8:16
`BOONE 2:2
`both 9:1,2 15:22
`19:17 23:4
`brevity 23:21
`bridge 17:4
`brief 15:16 17:8
`22:17,21
`briefing 22:20
`briefly 4:15 15:13
`brought 14:4
`business 27:6
`but 9:13 10:14
`16:22 17:10 19:14
`20:4 24:13 25:18
`by 2:2,9 6:23 8:9
`9:22 10:9 11:24
`17:17 18:19 19:3
`19:16,20 23:20
`24:23
`
`C
`
`C 27:2
`C.S.R 27:4
`CABLE 1:3,4
`
`call 1:13 4:4,19 24:4
`called 11:20 16:17
`came 7:20 9:10
`21:12
`can 10:4 15:16 16:1
`16:4 17:7 18:11
`19:14 23:6 24:23
`25:18
`case 12:13 23:12
`24:14 25:4,17
`cases 23:7
`cause 27:8
`cell 7:5
`certain 5:23
`certainly 20:1 24:13
`chance 18:21 23:24
`Chicago 2:13 27:6
`chime 18:2
`Chiplunkar 2:12
`3:8
`Cisco 1:2 2:7 3:12
`City 27:6
`claim 17:12
`claims 10:13
`clarify 5:10 13:7
`clarifying 7:12
`12:22
`clear 11:11 16:18
`clearly 13:4,24
`17:13 19:22 23:24
`close 14:2
`closed 26:4
`code 13:12 14:8
`20:16 21:4,6,9,13
`COMCAST 1:3
`come 12:12 18:20
`23:6
`comes 9:4
`comment 19:11
`COMMUNICAT...
`1:3,4
`compared 19:17
`conclusion 22:7
`conclusions 9:23
`10:19 12:12 14:6
`15:10
`confer 22:4
`conference 1:13
`conferring 8:7
`confess 15:20
`confirm 8:13
`confirmed 10:18
`confused 13:2
`contains 27:11
`context 14:4
`Continue 15:3
`
`
`Thompson Court Reporters, IncThompson Court Reporters, Inc
`
`thompsonreporters.comthompsonreporters.com
`
`Page 28
`
`contrary 6:22 17:15
`17:17 18:8
`copy 7:24 19:2
`CORP 1:5
`correct 7:14 10:11
`14:17,24 27:9
`correspondence 8:1
`8:18
`could 21:9 23:18
`counsel 3:3 6:18
`7:23 8:1,7,9,12
`10:22 13:1,14
`15:13 19:22 20:14
`21:2,5 23:9 24:21
`25:13
`COUNTY 27:2
`course 10:4
`court 3:15,19 25:14
`25:16 27:5
`COX 1:4
`cross 5:11
`cross-examination
`4:6 5:9,18,22 7:13
`12:9 13:23 14:13
`17:20
`crystalized 17:11
`CST 1:15 26:4
`
`D
`Dallas 2:5
`date 23:13 25:1
`dates 24:1,3
`David 2:2 3:11
`David.mccombs.i...
`2:3
`deal 16:19
`declaration 5:4,17
`7:1 8:22 9:15
`11:12,16,24 12:4
`12:14 13:1,17,19
`14:17 15:2
`degree 19:13
`Delta 1:9 3:5
`denied 8:14
`deposition 5:12 7:22
`8:12 14:12,16,20
`15:4,20 17:20
`21:7,8 22:1 25:15
`describe 9:18
`described 5:20
`24:13
`Deshpande 1:17
`17:7 22:5
`detail 11:23
`detailed 18:19
`details 5:23 15:19
`
`9
`
`

`

`determining 11:5
`did 3:24,24 11:13
`12:10 13:10 14:24
`18:20,20
`differing 14:1
`difficult 18:23
`direct 22:6
`discoverable 8:15
`discovered 5:11
`discovery 4:5,9,11
`6:20 7:7,10 10:17
`11:4,10 12:18
`16:8,10 17:16,19
`22:23 23:1 25:6
`discuss 14:18,20
`discussed 15:19
`discussion 13:23
`16:7 17:19 22:3
`DISH 1:2
`dispute 17:11
`diving 15:19
`do 9:11 18:5 19:11
`23:9,16 24:15,16
`does 12:4 14:17,20
`16:2
`doesn't 10:12 14:14
`doing 27:6
`don't 10:14 12:8,17
`14:3 17:3 18:1,17
`20:10 21:11,12
`done 10:9 15:21
`19:8 25:18
`draft 21:11
`DSL 4:22,23
`due 24:1,3 25:1
`duly 27:5
`during 5:8 7:13,22
`8:11 13:22 14:12
`25:19
`
`E
`either 12:13 22:22
`elicit 19:5
`else 3:23 17:21
`email 4:16
`end 22:2
`enough 15:21
`ENTERPRISES
`1:5
`entirely 21:19
`envisioning 24:8
`estimate 12:17
`16:17 20:2
`estimation 7:4
`even 17:16 19:12
`event 8:15 10:14
`
`everything 16:15
`evidence 10:15
`21:18
`example 11:19 12:7
`14:8,21 20:19
`exchanged 13:5
`exhibit 13:13,16,17
`19:1,10 20:17
`21:1,2 25:17
`exist 8:4
`existing 18:24
`expect 18:1
`expert 4:6,16 6:23
`9:4,15 10:6,18
`11:18,20 12:1
`19:4,5
`expert's 6:4 9:16
`10:19
`explain 19:15
`explore 18:4
`expressed 12:13
`expressing 11:15
`extent 6:7,10 17:15
`
`F
`fact 6:4 7:16 8:3
`9:18 10:10,11,18
`21:8
`factors 23:2,6 25:5
`factual 16:3
`fairly 17:21
`fall 16:9
`falls 17:16
`far 8:2 17:9
`fashion 23:2
`faulty 12:1
`Feel 18:2
`few 16:20
`figure 15:24
`file 25:15,16
`filed 11:12 25:19
`final 16:12
`finish 7:18
`first 11:1,10 16:2
`27:4
`five 23:19
`fix 21:23
`flawed 9:17
`foggy 6:2
`follow-up 23:12
`followed 7:24
`following 24:5
`foregoing 27:8
`foremost 11:11
`form 19:6
`forth 11:22
`
`forward 16:1,5
`Foster 2:4 3:12
`10:24 11:1,7,8
`13:7,21 14:7,17
`14:24 15:4 20:8,9
`22:11
`frankly 21:19
`free 18:2 20:17
`from 3:2,6 5:12
`10:17,17 11:11
`13:15 17:18 18:11
`21:12,24 22:21
`23:6 24:3,4,7,9
`25:1
`front 19:4
`further 18:4
`
`G
`gap 14:2 17:4
`Garmin 23:2,6 25:4
`Gaussian 11:21
`gave 14:16
`generate 6:13
`germane 18:9
`get 4:2 10:7,15 17:9
`18:10 19:9 22:5
`24:22
`give 23:6
`given 17:19
`go 7:17
`going 7:20 8:6
`10:23 1