Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`Reporter's Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`June 20, 2017
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2053
`IPR2016-01198
`
`

`

`·1· · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4· ·APPLE, INC.,· · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · · · · )
`·6· · · Vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·7· ·VOIP-PAL.COM, Inc.,· · · · · · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`·8· · · · · · ·Patent Owner,· · · · )
`· · ·_______________________________)
`·9
`
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2016-01198
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·U.S. Patent 9,179,005
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2016-01201
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·U.S. Patent 8,542,815
`14
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · 11:00 A.M. - 11:31 A.M.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported By:
`· · ·Josie C. Gonzalez
`24· ·CSR No. 13435
`
`25· ·Job No. 10033995
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`·1· ·APPEARING VIA TELEPHONE:
`
`·2· ·Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE COX
`· · · · · · · · · · · JUDGE SCALA
`·4· · · · · · · · · · JUDGE SHAGNON
`
`·5
`
`·6
`· · ·For the Petitioner:
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · ERISE IP
`·8
`· · · · · · · · · · BY: ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQ.
`·9· · · · · · · · · 6201 College Boulevard, Suite 300
`· · · · · · · · · · Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`10· · · · · · · · · (913) 777-5600
`
`11
`
`12· ·For the Patent Owner:
`
`13· · · · · · · · · KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`14· · · · · · · · · BY: BRENT BABCOCK, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · · · BY: JOHN CARSON, ESQ.
`15· · · · · · · · · 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`· · · · · · · · · · Irvine, California 92614
`16· · · · · · · · · (949) 760-0404
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 2
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Good morning.· This is Judge Cox.
`
`·2· ·Who do we have on the call for the petitioner?
`
`·3· · · · · ·MR. SEITZ:· Adam Seitz for petitioner, Apple.
`
`·4· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Thank you, Mr. Seitz.· And
`
`·5· ·for patent owner?
`
`·6· · · · · ·MR. BABCOCK:· Good afternoon, your Honors.· This
`
`·7· ·is Brent Babcock.· And also on the phone, I believe is
`
`·8· ·John Carson.· And we have a court reporter.· Her name is
`
`·9· ·Josie Gonzalez from Aptus Court Reporting.
`
`10· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Thank you, Mr. Babcock.· Once
`
`11· ·this call is complete, please file a transcript of the
`
`12· ·call when it becomes available.
`
`13· · · · · ·MR. BABCOCK:· Yes, of course.
`
`14· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· All right.
`
`15· · · · · ·Mr. Seitz, I believe you requested this call in
`
`16· ·connection with IPR2016-01198 and 01201.· Why don't you
`
`17· ·go ahead.
`
`18· · · · · ·MR. SEITZ:· Yes.· Thank you, your Honor.
`
`19· · · · · ·We asked this call to address Paper 40, which is
`
`20· ·patent owner's motion to exclude.· We would like to seek
`
`21· ·permission to file a motion to expunge Pages 2 to 15 of
`
`22· ·that motion to exclude because it amounts to nothing
`
`23· ·more than additional attorney argument, 13 pages more of
`
`24· ·sur-reply in fact.
`
`25· · · · · ·To give a little context, your Honor, there is
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 3
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·15 pages total here Voip-Pal is challenging or under the
`
`·2· ·guise of a motion to exclude, seeking to exclude
`
`·3· ·particular portions of testimony from six witnesses.
`
`·4· · · · · ·The first witness is an individual by the name
`
`·5· ·of Henry Hoe, who is Apple's expert.· We are not seeking
`
`·6· ·to expunge the motion to exclude as it relates to
`
`·7· ·Dr. Hoe, but we are challenging what Voip-Pal has done
`
`·8· ·here for the remaining five witnesses.
`
`·9· · · · · ·The remaining five witnesses are all Voip-Pal's
`
`10· ·own declarants.· William Mangione-Smith, their expert;
`
`11· ·John Rutter, a third party that was paid to provide a
`
`12· ·declaration; David Terry, an employee of Voip-Pal;
`
`13· ·Clay Paroe, an inventor and founder who was given nearly
`
`14· ·a million shares to assist in this case and an
`
`15· ·individual by the name of Yohan Anil Victor Purcell, who
`
`16· ·was also given a million shares to participate in this
`
`17· ·case.
`
`18· · · · · ·The request here and the motion to exclude from
`
`19· ·Voip-Pal is a little odd.· You can see it's summarized
`
`20· ·nicely on Page 2.· They are not actually seeking to
`
`21· ·strike these witnesses or exclude these witnesses from
`
`22· ·the record.· They are not even seeking to strike or
`
`23· ·exclude the deposition transcripts from the record.
`
`24· ·Instead what they are doing is seeking to strike just
`
`25· ·the individual citations that Apple has made to
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 4
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·particular portions of this depo testimony and then also
`
`·2· ·asking the board to ignore or exclude Apple's arguments
`
`·3· ·around that deposition testimony.· And you can see very
`
`·4· ·clearly two examples of what we believe is nothing more
`
`·5· ·than sur-reply argument.
`
`·6· · · · · ·Page 4, where they're addressing in the motion
`
`·7· ·to exclude Paper 40.· On Page 4 they are addressing
`
`·8· ·Dr. Mangione-Smith, and there they use a lead-in of
`
`·9· ·saying Apple provided a mischaracterization of his
`
`10· ·testimony.· The remainder of the page is their
`
`11· ·explanation as to why they believe the evidence shows
`
`12· ·something different.
`
`13· · · · · ·The same thing happens on Page 14.· Really, with
`
`14· ·all of these.· Page 14 is another very clear example
`
`15· ·relating to Yohan Purcell.· There, again, they use the
`
`16· ·lead-in of saying Apple has miscited certain testimony
`
`17· ·and then Voip-Pal uses the remainder of the page to say
`
`18· ·that Apple's assertion is inconsistent with numerous
`
`19· ·statements by Mr. Purcell, that they believe the
`
`20· ·evidence shows something different.
`
`21· · · · · ·So in reality, this has nothing to do with
`
`22· ·issues of admissibility under the rules of evidence, but
`
`23· ·it's argument on why they believe the testimony means or
`
`24· ·says something different as it relates to the issues in
`
`25· ·the case.· They are simply putting up Apple's citations
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 5
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·as arguments and a straw man in order to provide new
`
`·2· ·arguments and new citations to new testimony.
`
`·3· · · · · ·They've already -- Voip-Pal has already been
`
`·4· ·granted a five-page sur-reply.· They simply --
`
`·5· ·apparently didn't have enough space to provide these new
`
`·6· ·arguments and new citations.· It's going to take them
`
`·7· ·13 pages in a motion to exclude to continue that.
`
`·8· · · · · ·The board has expressly noted that attempts to
`
`·9· ·use a motion to exclude as a sur-reply are improper. I
`
`10· ·would direct your Honors to Liberty Mutual Insurance,
`
`11· ·the Progressive Casualty Insurance, CBM 2012-2 at
`
`12· ·Page 62 where the board noted, "While a motion to
`
`13· ·exclude may raise issues related to admissibility of
`
`14· ·evidence, it is not an opportunity to file a sur-reply."
`
`15· · · · · ·In that same case, the board also noted that
`
`16· ·motions to exclude may not be used as a way to challenge
`
`17· ·the sufficiency to prove a particular fact, which is
`
`18· ·what Voip-Pal has done here.· Thus, your Honor, we would
`
`19· ·ask that this -- Pages 2 to 15 of this motion to exclude
`
`20· ·be expunged from the record.· There is precedent for
`
`21· ·expunging improper sur-replies, really, in that manner,
`
`22· ·from the board.
`
`23· · · · · ·Again, I would direct you to Seagate v. ENOVA,
`
`24· ·IPR2014-1178, Paper 45 where the board expunged -- it
`
`25· ·was a motion for observation but expunged that because
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 6
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·it amounted to an improper sur-reply.
`
`·2· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Thank you, Mr. Seitz.
`
`·3· · · · · ·Mr. Babcock, we will hear from you.
`
`·4· · · · · ·MR. BABCOCK:· Yes, your Honor.· Thank you very
`
`·5· ·much.
`
`·6· · · · · ·All the reasons that Apple points to are simply
`
`·7· ·reasons that Apple should argue are all basis to deny
`
`·8· ·the motion.· I think Apple misunderstands the board's
`
`·9· ·historical expungement precedent as well as its motion
`
`10· ·to exclude.· Expungement is an extreme remedy for
`
`11· ·violation of the board's rules; particularly when you
`
`12· ·have a situation where there may be an improper filing
`
`13· ·that wasn't authorized; you may have an untimely filing,
`
`14· ·you may have an ex-parte communication.
`
`15· · · · · ·None of those situations arise here.· This is an
`
`16· ·authorized paper.· It was timely filed.· The objections
`
`17· ·were timely made by Voip-Pal.· So there is no basis here
`
`18· ·under the board's precedent to expunge.· The case is --
`
`19· ·the case that Apple cites -- not surprisingly the board
`
`20· ·often denies motions to exclude.· They don't expunge
`
`21· ·them.· They don't expunge them based on the merits of --
`
`22· ·the pros and cons of the merits of the arguments.
`
`23· · · · · ·Motions to exclude virtually always touch in
`
`24· ·some respect of the merits.· I don't think I've seen
`
`25· ·very many motions to exclude that aren't in some way
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 7
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·related to the merits.· There's no prohibition with
`
`·2· ·regards to having a motion to exclude address the
`
`·3· ·merits.· The board has made it clear that any FRE is a
`
`·4· ·basis for motion to exclude including 401, 402 and 403,
`
`·5· ·which are all brought -- evidentiary rules.
`
`·6· · · · · ·In this case that's exactly what -- what
`
`·7· ·Voip-Pal has cited.· Rule 403 in particular.· There are
`
`·8· ·-- in my experience -- because we didn't have a lot of
`
`·9· ·time to brief this -- but I'll point to the case of
`
`10· ·Spectrum v. Assa Abloy 2015.· It's IPR2015-01562, Paper
`
`11· ·24.· In this case Fish & Richardson for Assa Abloy filed
`
`12· ·a motion to exclude of deposition transcripts for the
`
`13· ·same type of reasons; 401, 402, 403 are arguing that the
`
`14· ·transcript citations were unfair and prejudicial on
`
`15· ·explaining why they felt that was the case.
`
`16· · · · · ·The parties didn't try to expunge it.· The board
`
`17· ·didn't expunge it.· The board addressed the issue on the
`
`18· ·merits.· The same thing happened TradeStation v. Trading
`
`19· ·Technologies.· CBM2015-00172, Paper 65.· Again, a motion
`
`20· ·to exclude dealing with deposition testimony argued to
`
`21· ·be unfair or prejudicial.· The board addressed the
`
`22· ·motion.· Didn't expunge it.· Again, not surprisingly in
`
`23· ·those situations, the board denied the motion and found
`
`24· ·that the testimony wasn't -- dismissed the motion, found
`
`25· ·that the testimony wasn't pertinent to the issues at
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 8
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·hand and simply dismissed the motion.
`
`·2· · · · · ·The board has had opportunities in the past to
`
`·3· ·limit scope of motions to exclude, and they have not
`
`·4· ·done so.· There is no precedent out there that limits
`
`·5· ·the ability of a party to bring a motion to exclude
`
`·6· ·addressing any of the federal rules of evidence.· And
`
`·7· ·there's no prohibition that those motions cannot address
`
`·8· ·or at least touch on the merits.· If that were the case,
`
`·9· ·I think it would be the possible rule to enforce to say
`
`10· ·no motion to exclude can affect or address the merits.
`
`11· ·Certainly most of the ones I have seen in some respects
`
`12· ·address the merits.· If that were the case, they could
`
`13· ·be interpreted, as Apple suggests, as improper
`
`14· ·sur-replies.· But that's not how the board treats
`
`15· ·motions to exclude in general.
`
`16· · · · · ·I think this panel is being invited to step
`
`17· ·beyond board precedent and to create a rule that says if
`
`18· ·you -- you bring a Rule 403 motion that addresses -- in
`
`19· ·any way touches on merits, it's improper to be expunged.
`
`20· ·That would be unfair to announce such a rule here and
`
`21· ·then to prejudice Void-Pal in that regard.
`
`22· · · · · ·In this case, 403 is a legitimate basis for the
`
`23· ·motion.· Particularly when you've got a situation where
`
`24· ·you have over 500 pages of testimony, you have five
`
`25· ·transcripts and Apple purposely provides misleading
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 9
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·citations to the record in the attempt to concoct an
`
`·2· ·evidentiary support where none exists.
`
`·3· · · · · ·The evidence here is simply -- the position that
`
`·4· ·Voip-Pal has taken, which I think is perfectly
`
`·5· ·reasonable, is that in order to explain how the evidence
`
`·6· ·is unfair and how it is prejudicial, you have to put the
`
`·7· ·evidence in context.· You have to explain what the
`
`·8· ·record actually shows and why in fact the way that Apple
`
`·9· ·is misusing the record should be excluded and should not
`
`10· ·be permitted.· So of course in order to explain --
`
`11· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Let me stop you there just a minute.
`
`12· ·And what you just said -- a couple of points before you
`
`13· ·go on is that a motion to exclude under Rule 54 is to be
`
`14· ·directed to evidence.· So the purpose of filing a motion
`
`15· ·is to exclude evidence that may be admissible.· Here,
`
`16· ·and what you just touched on, is -- and what Mr. Seitz
`
`17· ·had mentioned is your motion appears directed largely to
`
`18· ·the citation by the petitioner in their reply.
`
`19· · · · · ·And by way of example I'm looking at, for
`
`20· ·instance, Page 5 of your motion and 1198 Case.· You --
`
`21· ·you refer to citations by Apple being misleading and
`
`22· ·ultimate -- I guess this is Page 6 -- the ultimate
`
`23· ·request that the citation is to Exhibit 1,001 be
`
`24· ·excluded.· So it sounds like you're asking to exclude
`
`25· ·the argument itself, which is not the purpose.
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 10
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · ·And let me make one more point.· In making that
`
`·2· ·the point in your motion, you also refer -- you seem to
`
`·3· ·cite favorably to the underlying testimony.· And I'll
`
`·4· ·read -- this citation reads in a misleading matter
`
`·5· ·because Mr. Mangione-Smith clearly explained that he's
`
`·6· ·relying on what was inherited in the PBS System as would
`
`·7· ·be under certified -- ordinary scale of the art.· That
`
`·8· ·sounds to me like you are not trying to exclude the
`
`·9· ·underlying testimony as being admissible but Apple's use
`
`10· ·of it, which is not the appropriate -- not appropriate
`
`11· ·for a motion to exclude evidence.· In fact it does not
`
`12· ·even appear that you're trying to exclude the underlying
`
`13· ·evidence for admissibility.
`
`14· · · · · ·MR. BABCOCK:· Well, as a matter of fact, your
`
`15· ·Honor, with all due respect, we are.· I think that the
`
`16· ·motion and the objections were clear, that we are
`
`17· ·seeking to exclude certain portions, small portions of
`
`18· ·the transcript that we believe are being used in
`
`19· ·violation of Rule 403 and that are being used unfairly
`
`20· ·and prejudicially to concoct or to create the appearance
`
`21· ·of support in the record where there is none.
`
`22· · · · · ·It's not uncommon, in fact I think it's almost
`
`23· ·routine, that when a motion to exclude is filed, the
`
`24· ·company -- the company relying upon the evidence is
`
`25· ·usually included within the motion.· A motion to exclude
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 11
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·is something excluded as evidence and excludes the
`
`·2· ·portions of the brief or the portions of the argument
`
`·3· ·that rely upon this evidence.· I think you can probably
`
`·4· ·find that in virtually -- at least half of the motions
`
`·5· ·to exclude you're going to see practitioners saying
`
`·6· ·exclude the evidence and exclude the arguments that rely
`
`·7· ·upon that evidence.· Because, of course, if the
`
`·8· ·arguments that rely upon the inadmissible evidence are
`
`·9· ·allowed in, if they are considered, that's unfair.
`
`10· ·That's prejudicial.
`
`11· · · · · ·So if the board were to pronounce some new rule
`
`12· ·that said, hey, look.· You are not permitted to ever
`
`13· ·address in your motions to exclude the reply or the
`
`14· ·opposition or the petition that relies upon that, fine.
`
`15· ·We would follow that, but there's no such propagation.
`
`16· ·There's no such rule.· And I have done this long enough,
`
`17· ·and I know, your Honor, you have been in the practice a
`
`18· ·long time as well, that the routine practice is to
`
`19· ·simply say, exclude the evidence upon this basis.· And
`
`20· ·in this case, we have a 403 objection.· Exclude the
`
`21· ·argument that relies upon that evidence.
`
`22· · · · · ·So now if the board decides, look, we are not
`
`23· ·going to exclude it, we understand that.· I think 80
`
`24· ·percent or 90 percent or more of the motion to exclude
`
`25· ·are dismissed as moot.· But that's not expungement.
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 12
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · ·What they are asking for here, your Honor, is
`
`·2· ·for you to pre-decide that these arguments, the way the
`
`·3· ·arguments weigh so far in favor one or the other, if you
`
`·4· ·are going to pre-decide this motion and not only just
`
`·5· ·deny it, but you're going to expunge it, I think the
`
`·6· ·board would be setting a precedent that would be
`
`·7· ·difficult for it to uphold or for other panels to follow
`
`·8· ·when you appreciate the ramifications of saying any time
`
`·9· ·a motion to exclude addresses, touches on the merits,
`
`10· ·asks for the related argument to be expunged or to be --
`
`11· ·excuse me -- to be excluded, that somehow not only a
`
`12· ·basis for a denial, but it's a basis for expungement for
`
`13· ·the entire document.· That's extreme.· It's not the way
`
`14· ·the practice is devolved.
`
`15· · · · · ·If the board decided that in light of historical
`
`16· ·practice that motions to expunge -- excuse me -- motions
`
`17· ·to exclude have become unnecessary or they should be
`
`18· ·limited in some way, certainly they can promulgate rules
`
`19· ·and provide decisions that this is how we are going to
`
`20· ·do it hence forth.· But as we stand here today, that's
`
`21· ·not how it's done.· The way it's done is 401, 402, 403
`
`22· ·are broad rules.· I have seen dozens of motions to
`
`23· ·exclude addressing relevance, 401, and explaining why
`
`24· ·supposed evidence isn't relevant.· And then it's
`
`25· ·touching on the merits, why this evidence isn't relevant
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 13
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·to the case because of blah, blah, blah.
`
`·2· · · · · ·So that isn't a basis to expunge.· It may be
`
`·3· ·basis to deny, but in this case we think it is extremely
`
`·4· ·important for the board to appreciate that this evidence
`
`·5· ·is being used unfairly and prejudicially, particularly
`
`·6· ·when it's not going to be easy necessarily for the board
`
`·7· ·to appreciate how unfair the evidence is used when it's
`
`·8· ·a needle in a haystack, when there's one cite that's
`
`·9· ·pulled out of 567 pages of testimony.
`
`10· · · · · ·And for the board, then, to be able to
`
`11· ·understand quickly that this, in fact, evidence is not
`
`12· ·being used fairly, it is being used prejudicially, it is
`
`13· ·not actual fact but it's concocted.· It is a basis for
`
`14· ·us to challenge them to say, that's not right.· That's
`
`15· ·not fair.· You shouldn't be able to take something out
`
`16· ·of context, cite it and ignore the rest of the
`
`17· ·contradictory testimony in context.
`
`18· · · · · ·The point of this call really isn't for us to
`
`19· ·decide the merit.· I think Apple has the opportunity
`
`20· ·that every opponent does, which is argue the merit,
`
`21· ·explain why they think our arguments are incorrect.· The
`
`22· ·problem I think they have here, your Honors, is that
`
`23· ·they realize they are going to have a tough time
`
`24· ·explaining what they did.· They are going to have a
`
`25· ·tough time explaining how they use this evidence
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 14
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· ·properly.· And so what they want to do is sweep it under
`
`·2· ·the rug.· Don't even look at it.· Pretend like
`
`·3· ·everything we said is true.· And the fact is we are
`
`·4· ·pointing it out, use the opportunity to point out why we
`
`·5· ·are wrong and then you decide who is right and who is
`
`·6· ·wrong.· I'm sure you will come up, I believe, believing
`
`·7· ·we are correct and we pointed out how this evidence was
`
`·8· ·being used unfairly and prejudicially.
`
`·9· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Mr. Babcock, thank you.
`
`10· · · · · ·I'm going to hear from Mr. Seitz.
`
`11· · · · · ·I would like to make one point.· Some of what
`
`12· ·you described really is appropriate for replies, reply
`
`13· ·briefing, which is the briefing.· Motions to exclude
`
`14· ·itself are not part of the briefing.· They are to weed
`
`15· ·out inadmissible evidence, but I'd like to hear from
`
`16· ·Mr. Seitz, and then I'm going to confer with my
`
`17· ·colleagues.
`
`18· · · · · ·So, Mr. Seitz, do you have any other words?
`
`19· · · · · ·MR. SEITZ:· Yes, very briefly, your Honor.
`
`20· ·Thank you.
`
`21· · · · · ·I would just note something very interesting.
`
`22· ·What we kept hearing here is an objection to how the
`
`23· ·evidence is used, which was a quote I heard over and
`
`24· ·over, how the evidence is used.· There's not an
`
`25· ·objection to the underlying evidence itself.
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 15
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · ·The evidence itself are Voip-Pal's own
`
`·2· ·declarants who provided deposition testimony, and they
`
`·3· ·are not seeking to exclude those witnesses.· They are
`
`·4· ·seeking to exclude how the evidence is used.· In other
`
`·5· ·words, how Apple's arguments have laid out that
`
`·6· ·deposition testimony.· That is improper for a motion to
`
`·7· ·exclude.· They are seeking, in essence -- or what
`
`·8· ·they've done in essence is use that as a guise to
`
`·9· ·provide 13 more pages of sur-reply.· And that is why we
`
`10· ·are seeking to expunge this, your Honor, because it is a
`
`11· ·violation of the rules to provide an unauthorized
`
`12· ·sur-reply, not to argue that certain evidence should be
`
`13· ·excluded.· But when your argument is nothing more than
`
`14· ·an unauthorized sur-reply, then that is a violation of
`
`15· ·the rules for which the board absolutely has the
`
`16· ·authorization to expunge the filing.
`
`17· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Thank you, Mr. Seitz.
`
`18· · · · · ·I am going to confer with my colleagues.· If
`
`19· ·both parties would please stay on the call.· Thank you.
`
`20· · · · · ·Hello.· This is Judge Cox again.· I am joined
`
`21· ·with the panel.· Do I still have --
`
`22· · · · · ·Mr. Seitz, are you still on the call?
`
`23· · · · · ·MR. SEITZ:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`24· · · · · ·THE COURT:· And Mr. Babcock, are you still on
`
`25· ·the call?
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 16
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · ·MR. BABCOCK:· Yes, your Honors.
`
`·2· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· So we have conferred.· And
`
`·3· ·here's what we've concluded:· At this time we are not
`
`·4· ·going to allow motion to expunge the portions of the
`
`·5· ·motion to exclude, but we are going to advise the
`
`·6· ·parties, and in particular the patent owner, that a
`
`·7· ·motion to exclude that is directed to excluding a
`
`·8· ·party's argument rather than underlying evidence is not
`
`·9· ·within the scope of 37 CFR 42.64 and will not be
`
`10· ·successful.
`
`11· · · · · ·So that being said, we will, for the time being,
`
`12· ·maintain the motion to exclude in the record as is.· But
`
`13· ·Mr. Seitz, I appreciate that you have a response, an
`
`14· ·opposition to the motion -- a deadline for the
`
`15· ·opposition of motion to exclude, but you can approach
`
`16· ·that response with what I just said -- that opposition
`
`17· ·with what I just said that to the extent the motion to
`
`18· ·exclude is directed to excluding argument rather than
`
`19· ·the evidence, it is not appropriate.
`
`20· · · · · ·MR. SEITZ:· Understood, your Honor.
`
`21· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Anything else from either
`
`22· ·party?
`
`23· · · · · ·Mr. Babcock?
`
`24· · · · · ·MR. BABCOCK:· No, your Honor.· We understand
`
`25· ·your comments there.· Thank you very much.
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 17
`
`YVer1f
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · ·THE COURT:· And, Mr. Seitz?
`
`·2· · · · · ·MR. SEITZ:· Nothing further, your Honor.
`
`·3· · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Thank you.· Thank you for
`
`·4· ·your time.
`
`·5· · · · · ·MR. BABCOCK:· Bye.
`
`·6· · · · · ·(The proceeding was concluded at 11:31 a.m.)
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 18
`
`

`

`·1· ·STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·:
`·2· ·COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · ·I, JOSIE C. GONZALEZ CERTIFIED SHORTHAND
`
`·6· ·REPORTER, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
`
`·7· · · · · · ·THAT I WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE
`
`·8· ·PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AS ENTITLED ON THE TITLE PAGE
`
`·9· ·THEREOF; THAT I TOOK DOWN IN SHORTHAND ALL OF THE
`
`10· ·TESTIMONY GIVEN AND PROCEEDINGS HAD; AND I FURTHER
`
`11· ·CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING AND ANNEXED PAGES COMPRISE A
`
`12· ·FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SAID SHORTHAND
`
`13· ·NOTES.
`
`14· · · · · ·DATED: JUNE 22, 2017, AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·__________________________________
`
`18· · · · · · · · · JOSIE C. GONZALEZ, CSR NO. 13435
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`567 14:9
`
`6 10:22
`
`62 6:12
`
`65 8:19
`
`0
`
`01201 3:16
`
`1
`
`1,001 10:23
`
`1198 10:20
`
`11:31 18:6
`
`13 3:23 6:7 16:9
`
`80 12:23
`
`6
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A
`
`amounted 7:1
`
`amounts 3:22
`
`Anil 4:15
`
`announce 9:20
`
`apparently 6:5
`
`appearance 11:20
`
`appears 10:17
`
`Apple 3:3 4:25 5:9,16
` 7:6,7,8,19 9:13,25
` 10:8,21 14:19
`
`Apple's 4:5 5:2,18,25
` 11:9 16:5
`
`approach 17:15
`
`Aptus 3:9
`
`argue 7:7 14:20 16:12
`
`argued 8:20
`
`arguing 8:13
`
`argument 3:23 5:5,23
` 10:25 12:2,21 13:10
` 16:13 17:8,18
`
` 7:3,4 11:14 15:9
` 16:24 17:1,23,24
` 18:5
`
`based 7:21
`
`basis 7:7,17 8:4 9:22
` 12:19 13:12 14:2,3,
` 13
`
`believing 15:6
`
`blah 14:1
`
`board 5:2 6:8,12,15,
` 22,24 7:19 8:3,16,17,
` 21,23 9:2,14,17
` 12:11,22 13:6,15
` 14:4,6,10 16:15
`
`board's 7:8,11,18
`
`Brent 3:7
`
`briefing 15:13,14
`
`briefly 15:19
`
`bring 9:5,18
`
`broad 13:22
`
`14 5:13,14
`
`15 3:21 4:1 6:19
`
`2
`
`2 3:21 4:20 6:19
`
`2012-2 6:11
`
`2015 8:10
`
`24 8:11
`
`90 12:24
`
`a.m. 18:6
`
`ability 9:5
`
`Abloy 8:10,11
`
`absolutely 16:15
`
`37 17:9
`
`3
`
`4
`
`4 5:6,7
`
`40 3:19 5:7
`
`401 8:4,13 13:21,23
`
`402 8:4,13 13:21
`
`403 8:4,7,13 9:18,22
` 11:19 12:20 13:21
`
`42.64 17:9
`
`45 6:24
`
`5
`
`5 10:20
`
`500 9:24
`
`54 10:13
`
`actual 14:13
`
`Adam 3:3
`
`additional 3:23
`
`arguments 5:2 6:1,2,
` 6 7:22 12:6,8 13:2,3
` 14:21 16:5
`
`brought 8:5
`
`Bye 18:5
`
`C
`
`address 3:19 8:2 9:7,
` 10,12 12:13
`
`arise 7:15
`
`art 11:7
`
`addressed 8:17,21
`
`asks 13:10
`
`addresses 9:18 13:9
`
`Assa 8:10,11
`
`addressing 5:6,7 9:6
` 13:23
`
`admissibility 5:22
` 6:13 11:13
`
`admissible 10:15
` 11:9
`
`assertion 5:18
`
`assist 4:14
`
`attempt 10:1
`
`attempts 6:8
`
`attorney 3:23
`
`advise 17:5
`
`affect 9:10
`
`afternoon 3:6
`
`ahead 3:17
`
`allowed 12:9
`
`authorization 16:16
`
`authorized 7:13,16
`
`B
`
`Babcock 3:6,7,10,13
`
`call 3:2,11,12,15,19
` 14:18 16:19,22,25
`
`Carson 3:8
`
`case 4:14,17 5:25
` 6:15 7:18,19 8:6,9,
` 11,15 9:8,12,22
` 10:20 12:20 14:1,3
`
`Casualty 6:11
`
`CBM 6:11
`
`CBM2015-00172 8:19
`
`certified 11:7
`
`CFR 17:9
`
`challenge 6:16 14:14
`
`challenging 4:1,7
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`·Index: 01201–challenging
`
`

`

`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple Inc. vs. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`citation 10:18,23 11:4
`
`deadline 17:14
`
`citations 4:25 5:25
` 6:2,6 8:14 10:1,21
`
`cite 11:3 14:8,16
`
`cited 8:7
`
`cites 7:19
`
`Clay 4:13
`
`clear 5:14 8:3 11:16
`
`colleagues 15:17
` 16:18
`
`comments 17:25
`
`communication 7:14
`
`company 11:24
`
`complete 3:11
`
`concluded 17:3 18:6
`
`concoct 10:1 11:20
`
`concocted 14:13
`
`confer 15:16 16:18
`
`dealing 8:20
`
`decide 14:19 15:5
`
`decided 13:15
`
`decides 12:22
`
`decisions 13:19
`
`declarants 4:10 16:2
`
`declaration 4:12
`
`denial 13:12
`
`denied 8:23
`
`denies 7:20
`
`deny 7:7 13:5 14:3
`
`depo 5:1
`
`deposition 4:23 5:3
` 8:12,20 16:2,6
`
`devolved 13:14
`
`difficult 13:7
`
`direct 6:10,23
`
` 25 14:4,7,11,25 15:7,
` 15,23,24,25 16:1,4,
` 12 17:8,19
`
`evidentiary 8:5 10:2
`
`extent 17:17
`
`extreme 7:10 13:13
`
`extremely 14:3
`
`ex-parte 7:14
`
`examples 5:4
`
`exclude 3:20,22 4:2,
` 6,18,21,23 5:2,7 6:7,
` 9,13,16,19 7:10,20,
` 23,25 8:2,4,12,20
` 9:3,5,10,15 10:13,15,
` 24 11:8,11,12,17,23,
` 25 12:5,6,13,19,20,
` 23,24 13:9,17,23
` 15:13 16:3,4,7 17:5,
` 7,12,15,18
`
`excluded 10:9,24
` 12:1 13:11 16:13
`
`excludes 12:1
`
`excluding 17:7,18
`
`excuse 13:11,16
`
`F
`
`fact 3:24 6:17 10:8
` 11:11,14,22 14:11,13
` 15:3
`
`fair 14:15
`
`fairly 14:12
`
`favor 13:3
`
`favorably 11:3
`
`federal 9:6
`
`felt 8:15
`
`file 3:11,21 6:14
`
`filed 7:16 8:11 11:23
`
`filing 7:12,13 10:14
` 16:16
`
`conferred 17:2
`
`connection 3:16
`
`cons 7:22
`
`considered 12:9
`
`context 3:25 10:7
` 14:16,17
`
`continue 6:7
`
`contradictory 14:17
`
`correct 15:7
`
`couple 10:12
`
`court 3:1,4,8,9,10,14
` 7:2 10:11 15:9 16:17,
` 24 17:2,21 18:1,3
`
`Cox 3:1 16:20
`
`create 9:17 11:20
`
`D
`
`David 4:12
`
`directed 10:14,17
` 17:7,18
`
`dismissed 8:24 9:1
` 12:25
`
`document 13:13
`
`dozens 13:22
`
`due 11:15
`
`E
`
`easy 14:6
`
`employee 4:12
`
`enforce 9:9
`
`ENOVA 6:23
`
`entire 13:13
`
`essence 16:7,8
`
`evidence 5:11,20,22
` 6:14 9:6 10:3,5,7,14,
` 15 11:11,13,24 12:1,
` 3,6,7,8,19,21 13:24,
`
`Exhibit 10:23
`
`exists 10:2
`
`experience 8:8
`
`expert 4:5,10
`
`explain 10:5,7,10
` 14:21
`
`explained 11:5
`
`explaining 8:15 13:23
` 14:24,25
`
`explanation 5:11
`
`expressly 6:8
`
`expunge 3:21 4:6
` 7:18,20,21 8:16,17,
` 22 13:5,16 14:2
` 16:10,16 17:4
`
`expunged 6:20,24,25
` 9:19 13:10
`
`expungement 7:9,10
` 12:25 13:12
`
`expunging 6:21
`
`find 12:4
`
`fine 12:14
`
`Fish 8:11
`
`five-page 6:4
`
`follow 12:15 13:7
`
`found 8:23,24
`
`founder 4:13
`
`FRE 8:3
`
`G
`
`general 9:15
`
`give 3:25
`
`Gonzalez 3:9
`
`Good 3:1,6
`
`granted 6:4
`
`guess 10:22
`
`guise 4:2 16:8
`
`www.aptusCR.com
`
`·Index: citation–guise
`
`

`

`Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`Apple I