`
`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. 1067
`
`
`
` 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
`
`