`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )
`
` APPLE, INC. and )
`
` LG ELECTRONICS, INC., )
`
` Petitioners, ) Case No.
`
` v. ) IPR2016-01203
`
` FASTVDO, LLC, )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
`10
`
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )
`
`11
`
`12
`
` Friday, July 14, 2017
`
`13
`
` Telephone Conference before Judge Jeffrey
`
`14
`
`S. Smith, Judge Patrick M. Boucher, and Judge Karl
`
`15
`
`D. Easthorn in the above-entitled matter, commencing
`
`16
`
`at 1:30 p.m., the proceedings taken down by
`
`17
`
`stenotype by ANN L. BLAZEJEWSKI, RMR, CRR, and
`
`18
`
`transcribed under her direction.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
` RYAN J. MALLOY, ESQ.
`
` Morrison & Foerster, LLP
`
` 707 Wilshire Boulevard
`
` Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`
` (213) 892-5482
`
` Rmalloy@mofo.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
` On behalf of the Patent Holder:
`
`12
`
` WAYNE M. HELGE, ESQ.
`
`13
`
` Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`
`14
`
` 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`
`15
`
` McLean, VA 22102
`
`16
`
` (571) 765-7700
`
`17
`
` Whelge@dbjg.com
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` 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 Easthorn and Boucher.
`
`We are here for a conference call in IPR2016-01203,
`
`Apple versus FastVDO.
`
` Would counsel for Petitioner please state
`
`your appearance.
`
` MR. MALLOY: Hello, this is Ryan Malloy
`
`10
`
`from Morrison & Foerster.
`
`11
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Malloy. Is
`
`12
`
`there anyone else on the line for Petitioner?
`
`13
`
` MR. MALLOY: I will be the only one
`
`14
`
`speaking. I believe I will be joined by a partner
`
`15
`
`at Morrison & Foerster, Mehran Arjomand, who is not
`
`16
`
`counsel of record.
`
`17
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. Would counsel
`
`18
`
`for Patent Owner please state your appearance.
`
`19
`
` MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`20
`
`This is Wayne Helge for Patent Owner FastVDO.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Helge. Is
`
`22
`
`there anyone else on the line for Patent Owner?
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 3 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. HELGE: No, Your Honor, I will be the
`
`only one speaking. The only other person that we
`
`have on the line, Your Honor, is a court reporter
`
`that we have coordinated for this call.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Oh, good. And you'll
`
`submit a transcript of this call?
`
` MR. HELGE: Yes, Your Honor. I believe
`
`the standard turnaround is around 2 weeks, Your
`
`Honor, so I think, you know, around July 28th we'll
`
`10
`
`have a copy of that. Certainly in advance of the
`
`11
`
`oral hearing.
`
`12
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay, thank you. Okay. So
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner requested this call to discuss what it
`
`14
`
`contends are new issues in evidence raised in
`
`15
`
`Petitioner's reply. The parties have conferred, and
`
`16
`
`Petitioner intends to oppose Patent Owner's request.
`
`17
`
` Patent Owner, you've requested this call.
`
`18
`
`Please proceed with your position on the issue.
`
`19
`
` MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank
`
`20
`
`Your Honors for taking some time to talk about this.
`
`21
`
`As we've noted in our request, our email request
`
`22
`
`seeking this call, we believe that the Petitioner's
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`reply raises new theories of obviousness, really one
`
`specific new theory of obviousness, and the
`
`sentences that we wanted to bring the Board's
`
`attention to occur on page 11 and page 12 of the
`
`reply, and these really, these sentences bookend, I
`
`believe, what I would call the new theory of
`
`obviousness.
`
` On page 11, the sentence reads
`
`specifically: Furthermore, Kato, K-a-t-o, indicates
`
`10
`
`that storage of data in the hard drive is an
`
`11
`
`alternative to transmitting the data. And then
`
`12
`
`concluding that point on the top of page 12,
`
`13
`
`Petitioner concludes that paragraph by stating:
`
`14
`
`Thus, the hard drive replacing the transmitter would
`
`15
`
`contain data encoded with unequal error protection,
`
`16
`
`satisfying the storage claims.
`
`17
`
` Your Honors, we believe this is a new
`
`18
`
`theory of obviousness. We do not disagree that
`
`19
`
`Petitioners cited to column 33, lines 2-7, as they
`
`20
`
`stated in their position in the email. There's a
`
`21
`
`few places, page 20 of the petition, page 32, pages
`
`22
`
`47-48, and they also refer to paragraph 80 of Dr.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Lippman's declaration; Lippman, L-i-p-p-m-a-n.
`
` Your Honors, what we don't see in any of
`
`these portions that the Petitioners have pointed to
`
`is this idea that Kato discloses an express
`
`suggestion to store data rather than to transmit it.
`
`Figure 6a, in particular, shows us a transmitter,
`
`according to Kato, and this figure shows an output
`
`terminal 605. Figure 6b is then the receiver, and
`
`what we interpret Petitioner's position here to be
`
`10
`
`is that Kato is expressly suggesting that instead of
`
`11
`
`transmitting to the receiver, figure 6b, the
`
`12
`
`transmitter simply outputs to a storage. So instead
`
`13
`
`of output terminal 605, there would be, as they say
`
`14
`
`here, a hard drive.
`
`15
`
` Again, we don't see that theory anywhere
`
`16
`
`in the petition. We believe it's a new theory of
`
`17
`
`obviousness directed to what they call the storage
`
`18
`
`claims. I believe that's claims 5, 16, 28, and then
`
`19
`
`there are two means-plus-function claims as well in
`
`20
`
`this case that deal with storage.
`
`21
`
` But, again, Your Honors, we believe this
`
`22
`
`is a new theory, a new reliance on something they
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`now contend is expressly suggested by Kato, and we
`
`do not see that discussion of such an express
`
`suggestion in their earlier filings.
`
` One last point, Your Honor, on this issue
`
`here is we do have a substantive response to this,
`
`but because of the Board's rules here, 37 CFR
`
`42.23(b) and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`page 48767, we wanted to bring this to the Board's
`
`attention what we contend are new theories and to
`
`10
`
`seek a permission to file a motion to strike this
`
`11
`
`new theory, or other relief as the Board deems
`
`12
`
`worthy.
`
`13
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay, thank you. Counsel
`
`14
`
`for Petitioner, what is your position?
`
`15
`
` MR. MALLOY: Good afternoon. I would
`
`16
`
`like to start with page 47 of the petition, and
`
`17
`
`there is a paragraph on page 47 that begins: Claims
`
`18
`
`5, 10, 16, 25, and 28, and those are the claims at
`
`19
`
`issue. This paragraph here that starts on page 47
`
`20
`
`follows our detailed claim charts for Kato, and the
`
`21
`
`context here is that we're stepping through the
`
`22
`
`claims one by one and addressing specific issues of
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`obviousness that are relevant to those particular
`
`claims.
`
` In this paragraph at the bottom of page
`
`47 we have a sentence that says: It would have been
`
`apparent to one of skill in the art that the first
`
`and second compressed data portions in Kato would be
`
`stored or transmitted in different channels (storage
`
`areas or data links) in view of the unequal error
`
`protections applied to the different portions.
`
`10
`
` Now, at the end of that paragraph,
`
`11
`
`there's a sentence that says: In addition -- and
`
`12
`
`this is on page 48. We say, quote: Kato discloses
`
`13
`
`that the first and second portions can be in
`
`14
`
`separate data store regions and that data store
`
`15
`
`regions can be in a transmission or storage wheel.
`
`16
`
`And then we cite the portion of Kato, 33:1-7, that
`
`17
`
`is at issue here.
`
`18
`
` We think from at least this paragraph
`
`19
`
`that it's clear that we're contending that Kato
`
`20
`
`discloses that storage is an alternative to
`
`21
`
`transmission. That's what the word "or" in those
`
`22
`
`sentences mean. I don't see how it can be
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`interpreted otherwise. And when we asked Patent
`
`Owner for their position on why this disclosure was
`
`insufficient, they provided no response to us during
`
`a meet and confer.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Your position on this,
`
`Petitioner, is that it's not a new argument, it was
`
`initially filed in the petition?
`
` MR. MALLOY: Absolutely. So that's one
`
`place. And I would note that one of the sentences
`
`10
`
`that I've just read to you cites to Lippman
`
`11
`
`paragraphs 78-80. If I could refer you to paragraph
`
`12
`
`80 of Dr. Lippman's declaration -- let me know if
`
`13
`
`you would like me to wait for you to get there.
`
`14
`
`It's also in Patent Owner's email to the Board. But
`
`15
`
`paragraph 80 of Dr. Lippman's declaration --
`
`16
`
` JUDGE SMITH: What exhibit number is
`
`17
`
`this?
`
`18
`
` MR. MALLOY: Excuse me.
`
`19
`
` MR. HELGE: 1002, Your Honor. This is
`
`20
`
`Wayne Helge again.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE SMITH: 1002?
`
`22
`
` MR. HELGE: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. MALLOY: 1002, and paragraph 80 is on
`
`page 32. This is Dr. Lippman supporting the
`
`statements in the petition that I just read to you.
`
` Again, he's talking about these storage
`
`claims and addressing issues of obviousness that are
`
`specific to them in claims 5, 10, 16, 25, and 28,
`
`and he says: Kato uses the terms data store region
`
`to refer to both recording media and transmission
`
`media.
`
`10
`
` And then at the end of this paragraph,
`
`11
`
`summarizing his opinion about what Kato discloses,
`
`12
`
`Dr. Lippman states, quote: Kato discloses to one of
`
`13
`
`skill in the art that the first portion's PI are
`
`14
`
`stored in a higher error-protected data block or
`
`15
`
`transmitted -- so stored or transmitted -- via a
`
`16
`
`higher error-protected data link than the second
`
`17
`
`portion's RI.
`
`18
`
` So my understanding of Patent Owner's
`
`19
`
`position is that we didn't disclose originally that
`
`20
`
`Kato discloses that storage is an alternative to
`
`21
`
`transmission. But I think the word "or" in these
`
`22
`
`sentences that I'm reading to you clearly means that
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`storage is an alternative to transmission.
`
` There are many other places in the
`
`petition where we make this point as well, but I
`
`think that those portions that I just read are
`
`sufficient to resolve this dispute.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Counsel for Patent Owner,
`
`do you have anything to add?
`
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, I would simply
`
`note in here the portions that Mr. Malloy cited to,
`
`10
`
`specifically pages 47 and 48 of the petition in
`
`11
`
`particular, he read one sentence that began: It
`
`12
`
`would have been apparent to one of skill in the art,
`
`13
`
`and goes on to make a position about the portions,
`
`14
`
`the data portions in Kato being stored or
`
`15
`
`transmitted in different channels in view of the
`
`16
`
`unequal error protection applied to the different
`
`17
`
`portions.
`
`18
`
` What they have not pointed to, in
`
`19
`
`particular, in that conclusion sentence is an
`
`20
`
`express indication that Kato indicates, as they say
`
`21
`
`here in the reply, that storage of data in the hard
`
`22
`
`drive is an alternative to transmitting the data, in
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`particular as we look also into the sentence they
`
`read from that portion of the petition where they
`
`cited to 33, column 33, lines 1 to 7, where they
`
`present this position that data store regions can be
`
`in a transmission or storage medium.
`
` Once again, what they're not pointing to
`
`is any theory that Kato is expressly suggesting,
`
`with respect to figure 6a replacing the output of a
`
`transmitter with a storage device or, as they say in
`
`10
`
`here, a hard drive.
`
`11
`
` Now, our issue isn't particularly with
`
`12
`
`the storage versus the hard drive. Our issue is
`
`13
`
`that they're not suggesting here in their petition
`
`14
`
`or in Dr. Lippman's declaration that a modification
`
`15
`
`to Kato, that Kato expressly suggests, as they state
`
`16
`
`here in the reply, is getting rid of that output
`
`17
`
`terminal 605 in the transmitter, having the
`
`18
`
`transmitter output simply to a storage device, and
`
`19
`
`removing the receivers from figure 6b.
`
`20
`
` We maintain that, in our view, that this
`
`21
`
`is a new theory of obviousness, a new modification
`
`22
`
`to Kato that hasn't been provided in these portions
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`of either the declaration or their petition.
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay, thank you.
`
` Petitioner, do you have anything to add?
`
` MR. MALLOY: I would just reiterate that
`
`the word "or" in the English language implies an
`
`alternative. I think it expressly discloses what is
`
`now being challenged, that storage is an alternative
`
`to transmission in Kato. I don't understand what
`
`alternative reading Patent Owner is proposing for
`
`10
`
`these sentences.
`
`11
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay, thank you.
`
`12
`
` Patent Owner, the Board has decided not
`
`13
`
`to authorize filing a Motion to Strike. If you want
`
`14
`
`to raise this issue at the hearing, you can. That's
`
`15
`
`the Board's decision on this issue.
`
`16
`
` MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`17
`
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. Thanks to
`
`18
`
`everyone for participating. This call is adjourned.
`
`19
`
`Good afternoon.
`
`20
`
` (Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the conference
`
`21
`
`call was concluded.)
`
`22
`
`1-800-FOR-DEPO
`
`www.aldersonreporting.com
`
`Alderson Court Reporting
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 13 of 14
`
`
`
`grazirrgarr
`
`I, ANN L. BLAZEJEWSKI,
`
`a Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter for the State of Iowa,
`
`the
`
`officer before whom the foregoing proceedings were
`
`taken, do hereby certify that the foregoing
`
`transcript is a true and correct record of the
`
`proceedings;
`
`that said proceedings were taken by me
`
`stenographically to the best of my ability and
`
`thereafter reduced to typewriting under my
`
`supervision, and that I am neither counsel for,
`
`related to nor employed by any of the parties to
`
`this case, and that
`
`I have no interest, financial or
`
`otherwise,
`
`in its outcome.
`
`Dated this
`
`26th
`26th
`
`day of
`
`July
`July
`
`, 2017.
`
`
`
`CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`IPR2016-01203
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`
`Page 14 of 14
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2015
`Page 14 of 14
`
`