`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
` MICROSOFT CORPORATION, :
`
` MICROSOFT MOBILE INC., :
`
` SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, : Case No.
`
` INC., and SAMSUNG : IPR2016-01179
`
` ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., :
`
` Petitioners, :
`
` v. :
`
` FASTVDO LLC, :
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
` Monday, July 10, 2017
`
` Telephone Conference before Judges Jeffrey S.
`
`Smith, Patrick M. Boucher, and Peter P. Chen in the
`
`above-entitled matter, commencing at 3:00 p.m., the
`
`proceedings taken down by Stenotype by JESSICA CROXFORD, RPR,
`
`and transcribed under her direction.
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` On behalf of the Petitioners:
`
` DERRICK W. TODDY, ESQ.
`
` GARTH A. WINN, ESQ.
`
` Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`
` 121 SW Salmon Street
`
` Suite 1600
`
` Portland, Oregon 97204
`
` (503) 473-0827
`
` derrick.toddy@klarquist.com
`
` garth.winn@klarquist.com
`
` On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
` WAYNE M. HELGE, ESQ.
`
` WALTER D. DAVIS, ESQ.
`
` Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`
` 8300 Greensboro Drive
`
` Suite 500
`
` McLean, Virginia 22102
`
` (703) 894-6420
`
` whelge@dbjg.com
`
` wdavis@dbjg.com
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`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 SMITH: Good afternoon. This is Judge Smith
`
`of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. With me on the line
`
`are Judges Chen and Boucher. We're here for a conference
`
`call in an IPR2016-01179, Samsung Electronics v. FASTVDO,
`
`LLC.
`
` Would counsel for petitioner please state you
`
`appearance.
`
` MR. TODDY: Hello, Your Honor. This is
`
`David Toddy, lead counsel for petitioners, Samsung
`
`petitioners. On the phone with me also is Garth Winn, backup
`
`counsel.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Toddy. Is that it,
`
`you and Mr. Winn?
`
` MR. TODDY: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
` THE REPORTER: And, also, the court reporter,
`
`Jessica Croxford, from Alderson Court Reporting. I'm here as
`
`well.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: The court reporter. Okay. Could
`
`you please spell your name and identify the court reporting
`
`service?
`
` THE REPORTER: Sure. It's Jessica Croxford.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`J-E-S-S-I-C-A, last name C-R-O-X-F-O-R-D with Alderson,
`
`A-L-D-E-R-S-O-N, Court Reporting.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. Would counsel for patent
`
`owner please state your appearance.
`
` MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`Wayne Helge here for the patent owner. And, Your Honor, with
`
`me on the phone here is Walter Davis. Mr. Davis is the
`
`backup counsel in this case as well.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. And that's it on your
`
`end, patent owner?
`
` MR. HELGE: Yes, Your Honor. And, Your Honor, we
`
`coordinated the -- or scheduled the court reporter, so we
`
`will have the transcript available for filing, if the Board
`
`so desires.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
`
` Patent owner has requested this call to discuss
`
`what it contends are new issues and evidence raised in the
`
`petitioners' reply.
`
` Oh, yeah. Just before we get started, we do want
`
`the transcript filed.
`
` MR. HELGE: Certainly, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. The parties have conferred,
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`and petitioner intends to oppose patent owner's request.
`
` Patent owner, you've requested this call. Please
`
`tell us what your position is on this issue.
`
` MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` Your Honor, patent owner requested this call. As
`
`we reviewed petitioners' reply, we saw items that we believe
`
`constitutes new arguments, raised new issues. And -- and, in
`
`particular, what I can point you to, I think more
`
`specifically that may be the easiest for the Board to see, is
`
`they're relying on new evidence.
`
` The portion that we believe constitutes new
`
`arguments and raises new issues begins -- it's the middle of
`
`page 18. It's the paragraph beginning with the word
`
`"additionally." And it runs -- the new arguments run through
`
`the bottom of page 21. The points that I think are perhaps
`
`the easiest for the Board to see occur on page 19 and 20 of
`
`the reply.
`
` Each of these pages, the petitioner points to
`
`Exhibit 2006, pages 137, line 7 through 139, line 1.
`
`Exhibit 2006 is the deposition testimony of Dr. Stevenson.
`
`Now, that is petitioners' expert. I deposed him -- I believe
`
`it was sometime back in March before our response was filed
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`in this case. And these specific page and line numbers
`
`are directed to Dr. Stevenson's redirect testimony.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges this on page 19 about two lines above
`
`the citation that this has occurred during redirect
`
`examination.
`
` Your Honor, what happened after page 137 -- and we
`
`point this out specifically at page -- beginning on page 55
`
`of our response -- what happened after this testimony was
`
`given was, I asked Dr. Stevenson -- and this begins around
`
`line -- or, excuse me, on page 145, line 20, running through
`
`about page 147, line 7. And, again, this is in our response
`
`beginning around page 55.
`
` But I asked Dr. Stevenson about the testimony
`
`that's -- that's being pointed out, being cited to in
`
`Exhibit 2006 here in the reply. And Dr. Stevenson admitted
`
`that the testimony that he gave in this portion was not
`
`contained -- it was not -- contained theories that were not
`
`presented in his declaration. So, in other words, this
`
`testimony is being presented for the first time on redirect
`
`examination of Dr. Stevenson. And this is where he alleges
`
`that a certain portion of the Kato reference, K-A-T-O,
`
`discloses other examples of storage. And this relates to
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`column 33, I believe, of Kato.
`
` Now, the fact that petitioner is citing to this
`
`evidence -- citing to these portions of the deposition
`
`indicate that, without question, they're relying on new
`
`evidence and new evidence that relates to new theories that
`
`were not contained in the petition or in Dr. Stevenson's
`
`original declaration.
`
` There's another instance here that I think is
`
`perhaps very easy to draw the Board's attention to, and that
`
`relates to the bottom of page 20 and the top -- or, excuse
`
`me, all of page 21 of the reply, Your Honors. And here, what
`
`you see is the petitioner looking now for the existence of
`
`memory, and they're pointing to the decoder rather than the
`
`encoder. Now, their entire petition was focused on the
`
`encoder side. So, once again, this represents a new theory.
`
` What I can represent to Your Honors is that, just
`
`a few minutes ago, I opened the petition and I searched for
`
`the word "decoder." And the only instance of the decoder
`
`being discussed actually occurs with respect to the
`
`petitioners' proposed claim construction for code word where
`
`they talk about a codebook known by both the encoder and
`
`decoder. But they have not discussed the decoder with
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`respect to the storage claims, which I direct Your Honors to
`
`as being claims 5, 16, and 28.
`
` In particular, I believe it's pages 50 to 51 of
`
`the petition that point to claim 5. Page 57 deals with claim
`
`28. And in none of these portions do they deal with the
`
`decoder as a possible basis for obviousness of the storage
`
`claims.
`
` Your Honor, what -- what I wanted to do with this
`
`call -- and I appreciate Your Honors taking some time to talk
`
`about this -- is, I think, first and foremost, bring it to
`
`the Board's attention that these are new theories.
`
`Certainly, if the Board would like us to -- or would grant
`
`permission for us to file a motion to strike, we think the
`
`Office Patent Trial Guide supports the concept of striking
`
`replies that have new arguments, raises new issues, includes
`
`new evidence.
`
` But in any event, I think that, first and
`
`foremost, we were hoping to just bring this to the Board's
`
`attention.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
`
` Counsel for petitioner, what is your position?
`
` MR. TODDY: Thank you, Your Honor. Derrick Toddy,
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`counsel for petitioners.
`
` Our initial position is that there has been no
`
`change in petitioners' theory with regard to the obviousness
`
`of -- in particular, as mentioned by Mr. Helge, the data
`
`storage claims. I would refer to the petition and the
`
`discussion beginning at page 50 of the petition, continuing
`
`through page 52 of the petition as an example of that theory.
`
`That is supported by the declaration of our expert,
`
`Dr. Stevenson, at his declaration paragraphs 111 through 115.
`
` And in particular, I would -- I would direct the
`
`Board's attention to the two concluding paragraphs of that
`
`section of the declaration where Dr. Stevenson lays out the
`
`theory, basically, that it would have been -- and I'm
`
`quoting, "It would have been obvious to provide unequal error
`
`protection to the separate data store regions in which" --
`
`and now I'm breaking from the quote -- Pi's and Ri's are
`
`stored. And then the next paragraph ties that to similar
`
`CJi's that are from the first embodiment and says it would
`
`have been -- one would have been motivated to provide higher
`
`levels of air protection.
`
` That was and is our obviousness theory as it
`
`relates to Kato. It is further laid out in some other
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`portions, but that's a good summary. And it was -- for the
`
`first time in responsive papers, first in the preliminary
`
`response and then later in patent owner's formal response,
`
`raised that the data store region is patent owner's
`
`contention, as I understand it, that the data store region is
`
`limited to this RAM, which is located in Figure 6(a), and
`
`that -- that the data store region is limited to there.
`
` And our response to that was to -- both at
`
`Dr. Stevenson's deposition and later in our reply, to explain
`
`why that's not the case, why that theory of patent owner's
`
`regarding the data store regions being limited to the RAM is
`
`simply an error. It's not a change in theory. It is as
`
`properly included in 37 CFR 42.23(b) an argument that's
`
`raised in response to a patent owner assertion in this case
`
`in both the preliminary response and the patent owner
`
`response.
`
` I would further note that, as was already raised
`
`by Mr. Helge, patent owner was aware of this response at the
`
`time -- sorry -- in our full use of language, was aware of
`
`this position at the time it filed its response. So it spent
`
`four pages talking about what it called in its response a new
`
`theory that was raised during the deposition of
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Dr. Stevenson.
`
` Again, first, it is our position that that's not a
`
`new theory. And second, our position is, patent owner
`
`certainly had an opportunity to respond to it if it deemed it
`
`to be a new theory, which we would dispute and, in fact, did
`
`so in its response. It laid out its position regarding the
`
`RAM, and it did so throughout section -- the section at pages
`
`20 through 30 of its response, particularly at pages 22 and
`
`23. And then it spent four pages of its response detailing
`
`what it contended to be the new theory and why it was -- its
`
`position that it was a new theory, which we dispute.
`
` But there's nothing new in the reply. It's
`
`interesting to talk about something in a reply being new that
`
`was already addressed in the previous paper that patent owner
`
`filed. So, you know, our contention is that while we did
`
`provide examples of other places in the specification that
`
`provided examples of the data store region or potential data
`
`storage of unequally error protected data, that was solely
`
`done to rebut patent owner's assertion that it was only
`
`located in one place.
`
` And our obviousness argument has not changed. And
`
`to the extent there's any issue of whether the portions of
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the reply identified by patent owner are new or not, that
`
`issue was already raised in their response, it was already
`
`addressed in our reply, and certainly doesn't require more
`
`briefing for the Board.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Patent owner, what would you say in
`
`your motion other than point out now what you already said on
`
`the transcript record? What would -- if we were to grant the
`
`motion, what would it contain other than your statement that
`
`you want the portions of the reply stricken?
`
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, I think we would obviously
`
`detail that in some -- in some more time -- or, you know, I
`
`think a little bit more argument, we would provide some
`
`discussion of the Intelligent Bio-Systems Illumina Cambridge
`
`case, the federal circuit. This was back from 2016. Now, we
`
`did cite that in our response, so certainly the Board has
`
`already been made aware of that case. But I would
`
`anticipate, for the most part, it would -- it would be as we
`
`already explained it to you here on this call.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
`
` MR. HELGE: And, Your Honor, I would just note
`
`from -- from counsel's discussion a moment ago, he does point
`
`to, I believe, page 50 to 52 of the petition, for example,
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that deals with claim 5. And if you go there, you would see
`
`some discussion of Figure 7 from Kato. You would see some
`
`discussion of what he contends or what petitioners contend
`
`are what they call separate data store regions discussed in
`
`Kato's column 32, lines 35 to 40, and discussion of claim 9
`
`as well.
`
` And, certainly, there is some appearance of those
`
`portions in the reply. And we haven't identified those as
`
`being allegedly new. But, again, what you won't see in the
`
`petition is discussion of a decoder. You won't see a
`
`discussion of these other examples that Dr. Stevenson first
`
`presented during deposition.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
`
` MR. TODDY: Your Honor, if I could. This is
`
`Derrick Toddy for petitioners.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
`
` MR. TODDY: So as we stated, we believe this issue
`
`has already been, you know, addressed and doesn't require a
`
`separate briefing. But I just want to respond to the
`
`citation on the call to Intelligent Bio-Systems and draw the
`
`Board's attention to another federal circuit case that
`
`essentially -- that did distinguish that case. If you go to
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Westlaw, the first thing that pops up that's distinguished,
`
`that's Intellectual Ventures versus Ericsson case. The
`
`citation is 2017 WL 1380616.
`
` And I think I would just point out there, in
`
`particular, the point that's made at star 7 where a
`
`distinction is drawn between a case like Bio-Systems where
`
`new evidence is offered and new theories are offered based on
`
`evidence that was not of record versus the case where the
`
`same obviousness theory was maintained and no additional
`
`references were offered. And I think this is more like that
`
`case, Intellectual Ventures, than it is
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems. There was no supplemental
`
`declaration. There were no new additional exhibits other
`
`than -- exhibits are always contained in -- in responses and
`
`replies that cites deposition testimony.
`
` And so petitioners would contend that
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems is not an appropriate surrogate for
`
`this case, and a better case to look at would be
`
`Intellectual Ventures. And that highlights the idea, as
`
`here, that simply responding to a response argument by citing
`
`traditional examples is not -- is not introduction of new
`
`evidence and is not an improper reply.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. HELGE: Your Honors, this is Mr. Helge. May I
`
`make a quick point in response to Mr. Toddy's discussion a
`
`moment ago?
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
`
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, I'd just like to note
`
`that, in fact, we do have introduction of new evidence here.
`
`We have Dr. Stevenson's deposition testimony, which occurred
`
`during redirect. And, in fact, Mr. Toddy's correct. There
`
`is no new declaration. But had there not been this
`
`deposition testimony, there would have, I believe, been a
`
`declaration.
`
` But in any event, we don't need to worry about
`
`hypotheticals because, in fact, there is citation to this
`
`deposition to the new theories that Dr. Stevenson was invited
`
`to give. And I'll note -- it's one last point here -- is at
`
`the beginning of the deposition, I asked Dr. Stevenson if he
`
`found anything that he wanted to add during his review of his
`
`declaration prior to deposition. He said there's nothing he
`
`needed to add. And then on redirect, he comes up with this
`
`new theory. It's simply inconsistent.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
`
` MR. TODDY: Sorry. One last -- this is
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Derrick Toddy for petitioners. Again, I would just point out
`
`to the extent we're going to talk about the deposition in
`
`particular, there was a line of questioning from the
`
`beginning of page 60 -- I'm sorry -- 66, line 16 through 83,
`
`line 7. And I would direct the Board specifically to
`
`page 73, line 1 through 75, line 19 that we contend
`
`Dr. Stevenson was responding to in his redirect questioning.
`
`The questions on redirect were specifically directed as
`
`responsive to issues that were raised by patent owner during
`
`their cross-examination as is proper in a deposition where
`
`issues are raised -- normally, you take up issues raised on
`
`direct and then it's proper to raise those on cross.
`
` Here, the direct questioning, if you will, by
`
`patent owner was considered cross-examination questioning.
`
`And we responded to that cross-examination questioning which
`
`related to patent owner's theory that the data storage was
`
`limited to RAM. Patent owner had sought to limit data
`
`storage to RAM in its questioning of Dr. Stevenson.
`
` He did not agree with that, as you will see from
`
`patent owner's own questioning of him, repeatedly saying it
`
`was an example of a data storage region and then on redirect
`
`questioning, cited other examples. So we think that was
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 10, 2017
`
`Page 17
`
`completely proper and within the scope of -- proper scope of
`
`redirect as assessed as responding to cross-examination
`
`questioning.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. We have your -- we have your
`
`positions on the record.
`
` Patent owner, we're going to deny authorization
`
`for you to file your motion. If you'd like to raise this at
`
`the hearing, you can, and we will consider the issue when we
`
`prepare the final written decision.
`
` MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thanks to everyone for
`
`participating. This call is adjourned.
`
` MR. TODDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` (Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the instant proceedings
`
`were adjourned.)
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`CERTIF]CATE
`
`)
`
`)
`
`STATE OF UTAH
`COUNTY OF SALT LAKE
`the proceedings h¡ere taken
`THIS IS TO CERTIFY that
`before Írer Jessica Croxford, a Registered Professional
`Reporter in and for
`the State of Utah.
`That the said witness, before examinationr wâs duly
`the whole truth, and nothing
`shiorn to test.ify
`the truth,
`in said cause.
`but the truth
`That the testimony r^ras reported by me in Stenotype,
`and thereafter
`transcribed by computer under my
`supervision, and that a full,
`true, and correct
`is set forth
`in the foregoing pages.
`transcription
`I am not of kin or otherwise
`I further certify
`that
`associated with any of the parties
`to said cause of
`I am not interested
`action and that
`in the event thereof.
`19th
`July
`VIITNESS MY HAND this
`day of
`, 20L7
`3
`
`Jes
`
`ca
`
`or
`
`, RPR
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2014
`Page 18 of 18
`
`