Page 1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` -----------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` -----------------------------
` BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
` WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC
` KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC.
` BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
` PETITIONERS,
` V.
` FOCAL IP, LLC,
` PATENT OWNER.
` ----------------------------
` Case IPR2016-01259
` Patent Number: 8,155,298
` Case IPR 2016-01261
` Patent Number: 8,457,113
` Case IPR2016-01262
` Patent Number: 7,764,777
` Case IPR2016-01263
` Patent Number: 8,155,298
` ------------------------------
`Before:
`Judge Sally C. Medley
`Judge Joni Y. Chang
`Judge Barbara A. Parvis
` CONFERENCE CALL
` MAY 9, 2017
`Reported by: Susan S. Klinger, RMR-CRR, CSR
`Job No. 123319
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Bright House Networks - Ex. 1069
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` -----------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` -----------------------------
` BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
` WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC
` KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC.
` BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
` PETITIONERS,
` V.
` FOCAL IP, LLC,
` PATENT OWNER.
` ----------------------------
` Case IPR2016-01259
` Patent Number: 8,155,298
` Case IPR 2016-01261
` Patent Number: 8,457,113
` Case IPR2016-01262
` Patent Number: 7,764,777
` Case IPR2016-01263
` Patent Number: 8,155,298
` ------------------------------
`Before:
`Judge Sally C. Medley
`Judge Joni Y. Chang
`Judge Barbara A. Parvis
` CONFERENCE CALL
` MAY 9, 2017
`Reported by: Susan S. Klinger, RMR-CRR, CSR
`Job No. 123319
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Bright House Networks - Ex. 1069
`
`
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`
`Page 2
`
` May 9, 2017
` 9:00 a.m.
`
` The following is the Conference Call held
`at the offices of Nelson Bumgardner PC, 3131 West
`7th Street, Fort Worth, Texas, before Susan S.
`Klinger, a Registered Merit Reporter and
`Certified Realtime Reporter of the State of
`Texas.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`Attorneys for Petitioners:
` Mr. Christopher Tyson
` Mr. Patrick McPherson
` DUANE MORRIS
` 505 9th Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20004
`
` Mr. Wayne Stacy
` BAKER BOTTS
` 2001 Ross Avenue
` Dallas, Texas 75201
`
` Mr. Jaspal Singh Hare
` SPENCER FANE
` 10100 North Central Expressway
` Dallas, Texas 75231
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner:
` Mr. John Murphy
` Mr. Brent Bumgardner
` NELSON BUMGARDNER
` 3131 West 7th Street
` Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`
`Mr. Hanna Madbak
`Mr. Victor Siber (telephonically)
`SIBER LAW
`28 West 44th Street
`New York, New York 10036
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE PARVIS: Hello, who is on the
`phone?
` MR. MURPHY: Yes, your Honor. This
`is John Murphy and Brent Bumgardner on
`behalf of patent owner.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Who do we have for
`petitioner on the call?
` MR. TYSON: Yes, Your Honor. We
`have petitioner's counsel here. We have
`lead counsel for two of the IPRs,
`IPR2016-01261 and 01262.
` MR. McPHERSON: Lead counsel for two
`of the IPRs, IPR2016-01259 and 01263, that
`is. Wayne Stacy is also on the call and
`Chris Tyson and Jaspal Hare are here as
`well. And we have a court reporter here as
`well who will be transcribing the call.
` JUDGE PARVIS: So I will give patent
`owner an opportunity to -- just let you
`know I'm Administrative Patent Judge Parvis
`and Judges Medley and Chang are also on the
`line.
` Well, I will ask -- the patent owner
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`requested the call, so give the patent
`owner a chance to explain the reason for
`the call.
` MR. MURPHY: Thank you, your Honor.
`This is John Murphy. The reason for the
`call is we're doing a consolidated
`discovery schedule. So this deposition is
`consolidated across these four depositions.
`And as part of that consolidated discovery
`meet and confer process, we raised this
`issue with opposing counsel that there only
`be one questioning attorney as part of this
`proceeding. And their response back at
`that time when we agreed to the schedule
`was that we can consider this issue at a
`different time.
` The first time that they tried to
`raise this issue again was at the end of
`the first day of deposition where they
`indicated that they may or may not use a
`second questioning attorney. The first
`questioning attorney represents each of the
`parties and all four of the petitioners.
` And so it is our position that --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`and at the end of -- and during that --
`first time they raised it again at the end
`of that first day of deposition they would
`not even commit whether a second attorney
`would be questioning or not to avoid the
`call with the Board.
` They took the position that they
`have the right to the extent they do go
`forward with the second questioning
`attorney that to the extent we try to hold
`up the deposition to do a call with the
`Board, they threatened to sanction us.
` So we just want to raise this issue
`with the Board just to get clarity on this
`issue. And it is our position that on one
`hand all of the parties for one petition
`should speak with a single voice. The
`questioning attorney represents each of the
`parties across all the petitions.
` And another position that we have is
`across the course of a two-day deposition,
`they should not be given the right to, you
`know, tag team in a fresh attorney, you
`know, to wear down our witness after the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`course of two days.
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Your Honor, this is
`Brent Bumgardner also for patent owner.
`I've been practicing law for over 20 years
`doing exclusively litigation. I've been in
`hundreds of depositions. I have never even
`seen anyone try to have multiple attorneys
`for the same parties question a witness in
`a deposition. It is unheard of. And there
`is good reasons why the courts would never
`allow anyone to do this.
` I mean you are basically talking
`about tag teaming a witness with multiple
`attorneys and just passing them between the
`attorneys and wearing them down. And you
`know, you are certainly talking about, you
`know, it is unfair to the witness. It is
`also going to guarantee a much longer
`deposition.
` In every deposition I have ever been
`in even when you have multiple parties
`represented by the same attorney, you have
`a single attorney questioning the witness
`and that certainly holds true for trial.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`These depositions are going to be used
`obviously at the trial in this, in this
`matter.
` So we just think it is fundamentally
`unfair. It is completely out of bounds in
`the norm of litigation and that they should
`not be able to pass this witness around
`between multiple attorneys from the same
`firm representing the identical parties.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Is there specific
`case law or specific rules of civil
`procedure that you are relying on for this?
` MR. BUMGARDNER: There are certainly
`rules in various courts. I honestly
`haven't had time to go pull them up, but
`you know, it is just never done, you know,
`whether it is a written or unwritten rule.
`Boards wouldn't, you know -- never allow
`this practice to take place.
` JUDGE PARVIS: I will give
`petitioner a chance to respond.
` MR. STACY: Yes, this is Wayne
`Stacy. I represent Bright House Networks
`and only Bright House Networks out of all
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`of the petitioners. Like Mr. Bumgardner, I
`think I may be a little older than him. I
`have 20 years of district court litigation
`and this happens very frequently, very
`frequently. I don't know where he's
`practiced. But you ask about specific case
`law, I can point you to a case I just
`pulled up.
` It is 2009 WestLaw 811495, Equal
`Employment Opportunity Commission versus
`Lowe's, where this exact issue had arisen.
`And it arose because the second attorneys
`asked for additional time to ask some
`specific questions. And the Court said
`yes, I will even grant additional time.
`Not only can two attorneys ask questions,
`but I will give a little bit of extra time
`to cover some of the new material.
` What Mr. Bumgardner is referring to
`is, you know, he's based here in Fort
`Worth, it is kind of the old Texas practice
`where depositions had no time limit and
`they could go for four, five, six days and
`attorneys would just swap in to, to wear
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`down a witness.
` Here we're at four and a half hours
`with one set of lead counsel asking
`questions. That set of lead counsel from
`Duane Morris representing WOW will finish
`their questions and then at that point in
`time, which I think it is my understanding
`it is not going to be much longer in that
`questioning. And then after that as lead
`counsel and the only attorneys representing
`Bright House Networks as lead counsel, I
`will ask my questions, probably in the
`three hour range.
` There is no interrogation technique
`here about swapping people around by any
`means. So this procedure is --
` JUDGE PARVIS: Just let me ask a
`couple of clarifying questions. The four
`matters that we're discussing today, all
`four of these matters have been --
`petitioners, it is the same group of
`petitioners that filed, they're asking as a
`single petitioner. So it is Bright House
`Networks, WideOpenWest Finance, Knology of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`Florida and Birch Communications,
`Incorporated. Each of those four
`petitioners filed jointly the 1259, the
`same four petitioners filed the 1261 and
`then similarly for 1262 and 1263; is that
`correct?
` MR. STACY: That is correct. All
`four petitioners are the same on all four.
`Lead counsel is different.
` JUDGE PARVIS: So we look at that as
`they're acting as a single petitioner and
`they should speak with one voice.
` MR. STACY: That would be correct in
`front of the Board in the trial, but
`because we do not represent each other,
`there are attorney-client privilege issues
`that I can tell you lead counsel for WOW is
`not familiar with. So to represent my
`client, I need to address my particular
`issues related to my clients solely.
` And you know, you have got some due
`process issues here that would arise by
`preventing me from representing my client
`in this, this respect. I mean they all,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`they are filed together, but
`attorney-client privilege prevents the
`prior lead counsel from knowing what I know
`about my counsel.
` There is nothing in the rules that
`say --
` JUDGE PARVIS: It would be helpful
`to understand if, for example, in an oral
`argument, sometimes we will have -- a
`petitioner has one attorney who will argue
`obviousness and then the second attorney
`will come up and argue a completely
`different issue. And we will allow a
`petitioner to designate two different
`attorneys on two completely different
`areas, two different subjects. Is that
`what you want to do during the deposition?
` MR. STACY: It is lined up to be
`non-duplicative questioning. So that is,
`that is absolutely the goal.
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Your Honor, this is
`Brent Bumgardner for patent owner.
`Respectfully, Mr. Stacy is listed as
`counsel for all of these parties, so I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`don't know if they filed power of attorneys
`and he's represented on every single one of
`these parties. And they're all, you know,
`all these petitions are filed by the same
`parties.
` When he's telling you that he is
`only an attorney for one of these parties,
`that is not what they said when they filed
`papers with the patent owner with the
`Patent Office. So he is, in fact, an
`attorney for all of these parties.
` And respectfully, my practice is not
`exclusively in Fort Worth. I have cases
`all over the country and I have never seen
`this in any other case where attorneys for
`the identical parties at the same firm like
`this situation have been permitted to have
`multiple, multiple attorneys question the
`witness.
` So I don't know where he's practiced
`and I haven't had a chance to look at the
`case. They did not forward it around, but
`certainly Mr. Stacy is representing all of
`these parties. That is what he told the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`Board when he filed the powers of attorney.
`If there were attorney-client issues here
`they should have filed --
` JUDGE PARVIS: It helps to have --
` MR. STACY: I'm sorry, the court
`reporter couldn't get the -- Mr. Bumgardner
`was talking over the panel, so she asked me
`to ask you to repeat your question, your
`Honor.
` JUDGE PARVIS: I'm sorry. Maybe it
`would be helpful to understand a little
`clarification on non-duplicative
`questioning. Is that -- if it is the
`questions that maybe is not exactly the
`same questions but it is phrased a little
`differently, is that what you mean or do
`you mean something else?
` MR. STACY: So by non-duplicative it
`means it is a different part of the, the
`outline, different, different issues. So
`there is -- there is no goal here to go
`back over, you know, using different
`attorneys. And by the way I'm from a
`different law firm than the questioner
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`yesterday, so Mr. Bumgardner has
`misrepresented that twice that we're not
`from the same law firm. I'm from a
`different law firm and my attorney-client
`privilege is only with Bright House
`Networks.
` But the, the questioning is a
`different part of the, the outline. So you
`know, the goal would be to -- we just
`don't, we don't see it as duplicative when
`you look at the outline and go through it.
`And the issue here, your Honor --
` JUDGE PARVIS: Help me understand a
`little bit more when you say different part
`of the outline. I understand, you know,
`that you don't want to say too much about
`exactly what questions you are going to
`ask, but can you give a little bit more
`clarification? Are you going to ask about
`different prior art?
` MR. STACY: So, no. The questions
`about the scope and content of the prior
`art were covered yesterday, and will be
`finished up today. My questions will be
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`focused on claim constructions across the,
`the different claims.
` I don't mind sharing this with you,
`because the deposition is open. They can't
`be prepping their witness on it on the
`side, but my issues are not related to the
`scope and content of the prior art at all.
`They're related to the procedures around
`claim construction and the results that
`came from that.
` And what is going to happen, your
`Honor, the reason they are pressing this so
`hard is this is my specialty. They know
`I'm worked up for this particular issue and
`as soon as you know, you issue a ruling
`that says one attorney, we're going to take
`this piece of the outline to another
`attorney and they're going to ask the same
`questions I was going to ask anyway.
` But the interesting thing here is
`the Board has never once ruled that only
`one attorney can ask questions. Instead
`the rules are around what is abusive and
`what is not abusive. And if you look at
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`the district court cases which there are
`several of them out there that is what
`they're looking for, not whether you used
`two attorneys but whether the process was
`abusive, whether you were tag teaming,
`like, going back and forth.
` The procedure here is the attorneys
`from Duane Morris and WOW will finish their
`questioning and then I will take up my
`questioning. There were 14 hours agreed to
`for the total deposition time. We're going
`to be done in seven. Definitely no attempt
`to -- or seven, seven and a half,
`definitely no attempt to wear anyone down
`here and no abusive process.
` So what patent owner is asking you
`to do is establish a bright line rule that
`is going to be in all of the blogs tomorrow
`and change the way people practice. You
`know, it is not uncommon for multiple
`parties to allow different, different
`attorneys from different law firms to
`change.
` And in fact, I can say on the record
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`that I have been deposed myself in cases
`where you have had multiple attorneys over
`seven hours ask me questions. They were
`all from different firms and they
`represented different parties.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Quick question for
`the petitioner. I took a quick look and we
`have your designation of counsel in the
`petition.
` MR. STACY: Correct.
` JUDGE PARVIS: And that I think you
`changed firms since then.
` MR. STACY: Correct.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Is that correct
`Mr. Stacy? Not all the attorneys have, but
`Mr. Stacy you have.
` MR. STACY: Yes.
` JUDGE PARVIS: And then there was a
`mandatory notice, for example, in
`IPR2016-01259, paper 13. And the mandatory
`notice has the language, "Petitioner Cisco
`Systems provides the following mandatory
`notice."
` MR. STACY: Correct.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
` JUDGE PARVIS: But that was filed in
`IPR2016-01259, and the petitioner is not
`Cisco.
` MR. STACY: If I recall, I'm having
`to rely on co-counsel my memory here. I
`think as we transferred firms, one of those
`was improperly filed, because there are two
`other IPRs that aren't related here. And
`it was a misfiling that should have been
`corrected right after that, the next day or
`two.
` JUDGE PARVIS: I'm not sure if the
`corrected paper is in all of the
`proceedings. The paper, both the petition
`and the mandatory notice they do indicate,
`Mr. Stacy, that you are representing --
`you're lead counsel for the petitioner,
`which is all four, you know, all four
`and --
` MR. McPHERSON: Judge Parvis, this
`is Pat McPherson from Duane Morris. The
`issue you are raising is the issue I have
`raised before and has been addressed by the
`Board. The rules of the PTAB require that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`one lead counsel be named for petitioner.
`However, the rules originally were that you
`needed a power of attorney from every
`petitioner to counsel who is going to
`represent them.
` That violates a lot of ethical rules
`regarding who the attorneys represent. And
`in this case here, the petitioners do not
`have powers of attorney appointing them as
`counsel for each of the different law
`firms. The individual petitioners have
`appointed their own counsel. One serves as
`lead and the other serves as back up, but
`there are not powers of attorney going from
`all the parties to each different counsel.
` And the PTAB has allowed that to
`happen because of the issues that arise
`with, with conflicts and ethical rules as
`to who they represent. Just like in a
`joint defense group, one attorney can be
`appointed to talk on behalf of the others,
`that does not create attorney-client
`privilege with him and every member of the
`joint defense group. And so --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
` JUDGE PARVIS: Well, the petitioners
`in this case chose to file a single
`petition.
` MR. McPHERSON: Yes, your Honor.
`And my point is doing that does not create
`an attorney-client relationship between
`each of those petitioners and the various
`counsel representing individual
`petitioners.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Well, but that is a
`question, and the petitioner in this case
`chose to act as a single petitioner.
` MR. McPHERSON: Yes, yes, your
`Honor, we agree with that.
` MR. STACY: Your Honor, this is
`Wayne Stacy again. When you look at the
`case law, the places that prohibit using
`multiple attorneys are the states that are
`looking at abusive practices that allowed
`unlimited deposition lengths or 20 hours,
`and then the objections come up when there
`is actually an abusive process.
` Using multiple attorneys is not that
`unusual. You know, doing it in an abusive
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`way that is where it is being, you know,
`being addressed by courts. And I think
`the, the thing here is this was raised by
`the other side asking this panel to
`establish a bright line rule that two
`attorneys can never be allowed to take a
`deposition even if it is non-abusive. The
`facts don't matter. And like I said, that
`is going to be in every blog tomorrow and
`it is going to change the way everybody
`does depositions. It will be a huge
`procedural shift.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Perhaps I can give
`patent owner a chance to respond and also
`if you could -- give patent owner a chance
`to respond.
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Thank you, your
`Honor. First I would note that we raised
`this issue a while back and they laid
`behind the log until the middle of the
`deposition. We raised this as an issue a
`long time ago and now we're hearing about
`it in the middle of the deposition. And
`he's talking about case law we have never
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`seen and practices we have never seen and
`that is just what he is saying I don't
`believe is correct at all.
` I would love to see these cases.
`They have not provided us any case law on
`this at all until this call. Yes, it is
`true that you can have multiple attorneys
`question a single witness, but that is when
`they represent different parties.
` And here these attorneys have filed
`a single petition on behalf of all of these
`parties. They're all represented as
`counsel for all of these parties. They
`could have filed multiple petitions, they
`didn't.
` With respect to the attorney-client
`privilege, I would be shocked if these
`parties didn't have a joint defense group
`and consider all of their communications
`between each other to be privileged. And
`we have heard nothing about that. But the
`issue is not attorney-client privilege
`here. They can certainly go huddle up and
`prepare for these depositions together and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`I'm sure they already have. So that is not
`-- this attorney-client privilege is a red
`herring.
` These parties have been working
`together, they filed a petition together,
`they have been acting together. They
`should be a single voice before the Patent
`Office and we should not upset these
`long-standing rules which prohibit multiple
`parties representing the same parties to
`tag team a witness. It is fundamentally
`unfair.
` JUDGE PARVIS: If they're
`questioning, some indication that there
`would be no further questions on the scope
`and content of the prior art. If the
`questioning was limited to claim
`construction by the second attorney, would
`patent owner have a concern with that?
` MR. MURPHY: Yes, your Honor, we
`would have a concern with that, because
`respectfully we feel -- sorry, your Honor.
` JUDGE PARVIS: You have a concern.
` MR. MURPHY: Yes, we have a concern
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`just due to we're not able to put up a
`fresh witness honing in on one particular
`topic, you know, across multiple days.
`Rather like they're drowning our witness in
`paper and he is, you know, across the
`course of two weeks he's doing two-day
`depositions, two-day depositions and
`two-day depositions.
` And so we think it is inherently
`unfair, prejudicial to our witness for him
`to have to sustain over the course of a
`two-day deposition where they are able to
`sub in fresh attorneys.
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Furthermore, I
`don't think you can draw a bright line
`between these issues. Some of the art that
`is at issue in the file history with
`respect to claim construction is an issue
`across these petitions. It is just, your
`Honor, it is fundamentally unfair.
` They should be required to speak
`with one voice just like they would in any
`other court or jurisdiction in this
`country. They all represent the same
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`parties and they all filed powers of
`attorneys saying they represent all of
`these parties.
` They have been working together.
`They have been coordinating this whole --
`across all these petitions, they've been
`working obviously together. They can, you
`know, talk about claim construction or
`whatever before the deposition. So when
`they get in the deposition they should be
`required to question the witness with a
`single attorney.
` MR. STACY: Your Honor, may I close
`with one brief comment? And that is I
`think this is really a game of gotcha. The
`patent owner became very adamant about this
`because we permitted an associate to take
`the deposition. This was his first
`deposition in the PTAB proceedings, and
`they want him to finish out my piece of the
`outline rather than having me, a 20-year
`trial lawyer finish it out. So the witness
`is facing nothing different other than who
`is going to be asking the questions and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`that is what this is really about.
` And the other impact that they're
`really going to -- when this gets reported
`out it will change how the procedures work
`is they're going to make sure that junior
`attorneys don't have a chance in these
`depositions anymore, that the lead counsel
`has to do them all, and there is never any
`chance to develop more junior attorneys.
`But I think that this is what it is really
`about, because nothing is going to change
`in terms of questions that are asked or the
`outline that has been presented.
` The issue is who is going to be
`asking the questions and patent owner would
`prefer that they continue with an associate
`going through his first PTAB deposition
`rather than somebody who has done hundreds
`over the course of a career. And that is
`what this really comes down to, it has
`nothing to do with the witness.
` We're on four and a half hours of
`deposition. We will probably be finished
`in three more. That is not how you wear a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`witness down.
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Respectfully, your
`Honor, to the extent this is a game of
`gotcha, we raised this issue. They laid
`behind the log until the middle of the
`deposition not giving us any chance to
`fairly address this when it is completely
`contrary to what goes on in every
`jurisdiction that I have ever practiced in.
` JUDGE PARVIS: I'm going to confer
`with the panel and then we will get back
`with you. Just hold the line for a couple
`of minutes.
` MR. STACY: Yes, your Honor.
` MR. MURPHY: Okay.
` (Off the record.)
` JUDGE PARVIS: This is
`Administrative Patent Judge Parvis back on
`the line. Are the parties still on?
` MR. STACY: Yes and the court
`reporter.
` MR. MURPHY: Yes, your Honor, the
`patent owner.
` JUDGE PARVIS: In view of all of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`arguments the petitioner made a decision to
`start with a particular attorney and that
`was the petitioner's position. The
`petitioner could have chosen something
`different.
` So in light of the overall arguments
`and escalations that the parties have both
`helpfully provided, in our view it does not
`make sense at this point for the petitioner
`to change and use a different attorney for
`the remaining questions.
` MR. STACY: Okay, thank you, your
`Honor.
` MR. MURPHY: Thank you, your Honor.
` MR. STACY: Your Honor, just so it
`is on the record, Bright House will
`formally object on due process to not being
`allowed to question. And I understand your
`decision and I just need to make sure the
`record has that objection in it.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Well, another
`consideration is that it is not clear at
`least in some of these cases that the
`parties have -- the petitioner has been
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 31
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
`filing the corrected mandatory notices. So
`as a reminder to the parties, please make
`sure that your mandatory notices are
`up-to-date and your powers of attorney are
`up-to-date.
` MR. MURPHY: Thank you, your Honor.
` JUDGE PARVIS: Do the parties have
`anything else they would like to discuss
`today?
` MR. MURPHY: No.
` MR. BUMGARDNER: No.
` JUDGE PARVIS: We are adjourned.
` (Call adjourned at 9:30 a.m.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
` CONFERENCE CALL - 5/9/17
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
` I, SUSAN S. KLINGER, a Certified Shorthand
`Reporter for the State of Texas, do hereby
`certify:
` That the aforementioned proceedings were
`taken by me stenographically and transcribed
`under my direction, that such transcript is a
`true record of the proceedings.
` I further certify that I am not related to
`any of the parties to this action by blood or
`marriage; and that I am in no way interested in
`the outcome of this matter.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
`hand this 19th day of May, 2017.
`
` _______________________
` Susan S. Klinger,
` RMR-CRR, CSR
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
