`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`__________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF JUNE 21, 2017 TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10142129
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael Fleming
`
`Michael Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`Nima Hefazi (Reg. No. 63,658)
`Jonathan Kagan, Pro Hac Vice
`Talin Gordnia, Pro Hac Vice pending
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`10142129
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Case IPR2016-01389
`Patent 8,155,012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 42.6 that a complete copy of
`
`the TRANSCRIPT OF JUNE 21, 2017 TELEPHONIC HEARING is being
`
`served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties, the same day as the filing of
`
`the above-identified documents in the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon:
`
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`CHRMC0108IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`
`Richard W. Hoffman (Reg. No. 33,711)
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 1850
`Troy, MI 48084
`Hoffman@reising.com
`
`
`
`
`
` /Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Case IPR2016-01389
`Patent 8,155,012
`
`
`June 30, 2017
`
`10142129
`
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 2 ____________________________________________
` 3 JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., RUCKUS
` WIRELESS, INC., BROCADE
` 4 COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
` AND NETGEAR, INC.,
` 5 Petitioners,
` v.
`
` 6
`
` CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
` 7 Patent Owner.
` 8 U.S. Patent No. 9,019.83
` Case No. IPR2016-03197
`
` 9
`
` 10 U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
` Case No. IPR2016-01389
`
` 11
`
` 12 U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
` Case No. IPR2016-01391
`
` 13
`
` 14 U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
` Case No. IPR2016-01399
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17 EXCERPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
` 18
`
` 19 * * * * * * * *
` 20
`
` 21 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
` 22 Before Judge Weinschenk
` 23 Wednesday, June 21, 2017
` 24
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 * * * * * * * *
` 2
`
` 3 APPEARANCES
` 4
`
` 5 REPRESENTING JUNIPER NETWORKS:
` 6
`
` 7 Talin Gordnia, Esq.
` lgordnia@irell.com
` 8 IRELL & MANELLA
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
` 9 Los Angeles, California 90067
` (310)277-1010
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12 REPRESENTING NETGEAR AND RUCKUS WIRELESS:
` 13
`
` 14 Matthew S. Yungwirth, Esq.
` msyungwirth@duanemorris.com
` 15 DUANE MORRIS
` 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
` 16 Atlanta, Georgia 30309
` (404)253-6935
`
` 17
`
` 18 Christopher J. Tyson, Esq.
` cjtyson@duanemorris.com
` 19 DUANE MORRIS
` 505 9th Street N.W., Suite 1000
` 20 Washington, D.C. 20004
` (202)776-7851
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 APPEARANCES, CONTINUED
`
` 2
`
` 3 REPRESENTING CHRIMAR SYSTEMS:
`
` 4
`
` 5 Thomas A. Lewry, Esq.
`
` tlewry@brookskushman.com
`
` 6 Mr. Frank Angeliri, Esq.
`
` angeliri@brookskushman.com
`
` 7 BROOKS KUSHMAN
`
` 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`
` 8 Southfield, Michigan 48075
`
` (248)358-4400
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11 ALSO PRESENT:
`
` 12
`
` 13 Mr. Cole Burnett
`
` 14 Mr. Ian Crayford, by telephone
`
` 15
`
` 16 * * * * * * * *
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 THE COURT: Who retained the
`
` 2 court reporter for the deposition
`
` 3 today?
`
` 4 MS. GORDNIA: Petitioners did,
`
` 5 Your Honor.
`
` 6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then,
`
` 7 I will ask that you file a
`
` 8 transcript of this call, since it's
`
` 9 being recorded, once you receive
`
` 10 it. Okay?
`
` 11 MS. GORDNIA: We will do so.
`
` 12 Yes.
`
` 13 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`
` 14 All right. It sounds like patent
`
` 15 owner has an issue with the
`
` 16 deposition and requested this call.
`
` 17 So why don't we start there with
`
` 18 Mr. Lewry. I know you're in the
`
` 19 middle of a deposition. So tell us
`
` 20 as briefly as you can the issue.
`
` 21 MR. LEWRY: Thank you. The
`
` 22 situation is that there are four
`
` 23 separate IPRs that were filed and
`
` 24 are pending. The -- they have
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 common subject matter to a large
`
` 2 extent, which we all understand.
`
` 3 And so at the time that the
`
` 4 deposition was scheduled, it was
`
` 5 agreed that rather than the four
`
` 6 days that were normally allotted
`
` 7 under the rules for a deposition --
`
` 8 that the deposition of our expert
`
` 9 would be taken in a matter of three
`
` 10 days.
`
` 11 We then received four separate
`
` 12 deposition notices from the
`
` 13 petitioner, and so then -- and with
`
` 14 the dates and everything that were
`
` 15 scheduled. And so we inquired
`
` 16 yesterday what order the
`
` 17 depositions would be taken in, and
`
` 18 we were informed that they did not
`
` 19 plan to take them in order of -- or
`
` 20 by IPR number. They wanted to take
`
` 21 them, I guess, in a subject
`
` 22 matter -- they didn't really
`
` 23 explain, but -- and so that led to
`
` 24 this request for a hearing on this.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 One of the key issues for us
`
` 2 is, under the rules -- and I'm
`
` 3 referring now to 37 CFR 42.53,
`
` 4 subparagraph (c)(2). Unless the
`
` 5 parties agree or stipulate
`
` 6 otherwise, the time limit for
`
` 7 deposition is seven hours, and then
`
` 8 we have opportunity for redirect
`
` 9 examination on the patent owner
`
` 10 side, and then there would be two
`
` 11 hours for recross. And that was
`
` 12 the understanding we were operating
`
` 13 under, because there was no
`
` 14 agreement or order to the contrary
`
` 15 on that.
`
` 16 So when we raised that with
`
` 17 them, and they said no, they were
`
` 18 going to go for three consecutive
`
` 19 days, essentially, without -- try
`
` 20 to keep the witness under oath and
`
` 21 on cross-examination for all three
`
` 22 days is why we objected to this,
`
` 23 because it's our understanding and
`
` 24 our belief going forward that we're
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 entitled to -- they're entitled to
`
` 2 seven hours on a particular matter,
`
` 3 and then it's over, that matter is
`
` 4 over, and we can confer with our
`
` 5 witness at that point if we need to
`
` 6 or want to, and then they can pick
`
` 7 up with another -- a matter number.
`
` 8 So that's our position.
`
` 9 THE COURT: Mr. Lewry, though,
`
` 10 the section you cited me to says,
`
` 11 "unless stipulated by the parties."
`
` 12 It sounds like you stipulated to
`
` 13 something else, because you agreed
`
` 14 to three days, not four days.
`
` 15 MR. LEWRY: We did agree to
`
` 16 shorten the number of hours total
`
` 17 that would be spent. It was at
`
` 18 their request. And so we, I guess,
`
` 19 ceded to that request. But we
`
` 20 didn't agree and they didn't serve
`
` 21 a consolidated notice. They served
`
` 22 individual notices. We never had a
`
` 23 discussion about consolidating the
`
` 24 deposition in the sense of it would
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 be three days of cross-examination.
`
` 2 It was only how much time would be
`
` 3 allotted as opposed to the normal
`
` 4 28 hours, they had 21 hours, and
`
` 5 then however they chose to allocate
`
` 6 that.
`
` 7 And it made sense in the
`
` 8 context, because there are
`
` 9 commonalities of issues. There
`
` 10 were the four patents that are at
`
` 11 issue with respect to the issues in
`
` 12 this IPR. Many of them are in
`
` 13 common with respect to two of the
`
` 14 patents, in particular. And then
`
` 15 there are some other issues that
`
` 16 are unique to a couple of the other
`
` 17 patents.
`
` 18 So our understanding is they
`
` 19 would spend their first seven hours
`
` 20 on the common issues in one of the
`
` 21 patents, and then -- and then use
`
` 22 the other time to follow up with
`
` 23 other topics or other issues that
`
` 24 they needed to cover with respect
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 to other issues. So that -- there
`
` 2 was no communication or
`
` 3 understanding or agreement beyond
`
` 4 the number of hours.
`
` 5 THE COURT: You guys had no
`
` 6 discussion at the time as to how
`
` 7 the three days or the 21 hours
`
` 8 would be broken up?
`
` 9 MR. LEWRY: That's correct.
`
` 10 THE COURT: Okay. Looking at
`
` 11 their deposition notices, though,
`
` 12 it looks like they served a notice
`
` 13 in each case that says that the
`
` 14 witness will be under oath starting
`
` 15 on day one until the conclusion of
`
` 16 the deposition on day three. Did
`
` 17 you guys receive that notice? Is
`
` 18 there a reason why you waited so
`
` 19 long to try to clarify that?
`
` 20 MR. LEWRY: We did receive the
`
` 21 notice. I've got to say, frankly,
`
` 22 that I didn't notice that until
`
` 23 this issue came up. It -- you
`
` 24 know, I probably didn't read the
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 notices carefully enough. It
`
` 2 wasn't something that we had agreed
`
` 3 to. They put it in unilaterally,
`
` 4 and my understanding of the rules
`
` 5 is even though they said it in the
`
` 6 notice doesn't make it a reality.
`
` 7 But the reason for raising it late,
`
` 8 I suppose, in that sense, is
`
` 9 because I hadn't noticed it, and
`
` 10 nobody on our side had noticed it,
`
` 11 that I'm aware of.
`
` 12 THE COURT: Okay. Because we
`
` 13 do have a rule that if you want to
`
` 14 make a motion to quash a deposition
`
` 15 notice, that should be sought
`
` 16 promptly.
`
` 17 MR. LEWRY: Right. I
`
` 18 understand. But from my
`
` 19 perspective, we're trying to
`
` 20 enforce the existing rule, which
`
` 21 says unless there's a stipulation
`
` 22 otherwise. We view this as them
`
` 23 changing the rules at the last
`
` 24 minute. So that's why, for us,
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 this isn't late. But I understand
`
` 2 that it could have been raised
`
` 3 earlier, potentially, had we
`
` 4 understood what that phrase meant
`
` 5 and had noticed it and understood
`
` 6 it to mean that they wanted to do
`
` 7 three straight days of cross-
`
` 8 examination.
`
` 9 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lewry,
`
` 10 how would you like this divided up?
`
` 11 You want each day with its own
`
` 12 deposition, with its own cross, its
`
` 13 own redirect, its own recross?
`
` 14 MR. LEWRY: Yes. Basically,
`
` 15 that's true. At the end of seven
`
` 16 hours, if we have any redirect, I
`
` 17 would like to do our redirect, and
`
` 18 then move on to the next matter
`
` 19 number. And we have -- as I say,
`
` 20 it started because we had proposed
`
` 21 an order to the matters, and that's
`
` 22 what we understood was going on.
`
` 23 We expected them to either agree or
`
` 24 disagree in terms of that order,
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 and that's how we ended up in this
`
` 2 conversation.
`
` 3 THE COURT: What's the problem
`
` 4 for you, practically speaking, if
`
` 5 they do all of their 21 hours of
`
` 6 cross and then you do all of your
`
` 7 redirect, and they do all of their
`
` 8 recross, rather than breaking it up
`
` 9 into three separate portions?
`
` 10 What's the problem practically for
`
` 11 you?
`
` 12 MR. LEWRY: Well, as a
`
` 13 practical matter, there should be
`
` 14 an opportunity to discuss with the
`
` 15 witness the issues that were raised
`
` 16 in the cross-examination and to
`
` 17 discuss the preparation for a
`
` 18 redirect. To try to put it all at
`
` 19 the very end of a three-day
`
` 20 deposition when we'd have to do all
`
` 21 of that at the very end of that
`
` 22 process, would be difficult and
`
` 23 time consuming. The witness's
`
` 24 memory may have faded in terms of
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 some of the things that were said.
`
` 2 It becomes a very difficult
`
` 3 practical issue to do when you
`
` 4 can't speak to the witness and
`
` 5 discuss the testimony except at the
`
` 6 end of three consecutive days.
`
` 7 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`
` 8 I think I understand the issue.
`
` 9 Ms. Gordnia, do you wish to
`
` 10 respond?
`
` 11 MS. GORDNIA: I do, Your Honor.
`
` 12 So this issue, as you've noted, was
`
` 13 raised only yesterday when most of
`
` 14 our team was traveling. And the
`
` 15 deposition notice that was served
`
` 16 in each of the four IPRs is
`
` 17 identical, and it clearly specified
`
` 18 that the deposition would be for
`
` 19 all four IPRs, that Dr. Madisetti
`
` 20 would continue to stay under oath.
`
` 21 And, as you mentioned, there was
`
` 22 obviously a reasonable amount of
`
` 23 time for patent owner to object and
`
` 24 try to seek clarification as
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 opposed to waiting until today.
`
` 2 But putting that aside, the bottom
`
` 3 line is that patent owner has
`
` 4 served essentially one declaration
`
` 5 from its expert. One declaration
`
` 6 was filed in exactly the same form
`
` 7 in three different IPRs, and then
`
` 8 the other copy that was filed in
`
` 9 the fourth IPR, we can't see any
`
` 10 difference.
`
` 11 So essentially, their expert
`
` 12 has submitted a single declaration.
`
` 13 And much of the declaration refers
`
` 14 to other parts of the declaration.
`
` 15 So there are opinions that span
`
` 16 dozens of pages that are common to
`
` 17 all four patents. Their internal
`
` 18 citations then references back to
`
` 19 earlier discussions from one patent
`
` 20 to another.
`
` 21 So the exercise of trying to
`
` 22 break this deposition up into
`
` 23 separate modules that would address
`
` 24 each IPR separately is, I think,
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 nearly impossible, especially now
`
` 2 that we've already prepared for the
`
` 3 deposition and had been going on
`
` 4 the record for a couple hours this
`
` 5 morning. I think patent owner's
`
` 6 counsel will appreciate that the
`
` 7 questions asked are really applying
`
` 8 to all four IPRs, mainly because of
`
` 9 the way patent owner structured the
`
` 10 expert's declaration.
`
` 11 And so, I mean, given where we
`
` 12 are today, the timing of it and
`
` 13 given that the only motivation for
`
` 14 patent owner's request is to be
`
` 15 able to speak to the witness and
`
` 16 try to clarify or correct
`
` 17 testimony, we think that's an
`
` 18 improper basis to try to change up
`
` 19 what we had essentially agreed to
`
` 20 and they hadn't objected to. So
`
` 21 it's a little concerning for us
`
` 22 that they're trying to carve out a
`
` 23 way to sort of circumvent the rules
`
` 24 against conferring with their
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 expert. And the manner in which
`
` 2 they're trying to do it is,
`
` 3 unfortunately, kind of impossible
`
` 4 for us to make happen at this
`
` 5 point.
`
` 6 And I think -- we just looked
`
` 7 this up very quickly. The
`
` 8 testimony guidelines are in, I
`
` 9 believe, Section 6 of the Practice
`
` 10 Guide.
`
` 11 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Gordnia,
`
` 12 let me ask you this: It sounds
`
` 13 like maybe -- I may be speaking on
`
` 14 behalf of patent owner a little bit
`
` 15 here, but it sounds like maybe
`
` 16 their concern isn't necessarily
`
` 17 exactly how you divide up the
`
` 18 testimony, so maybe we don't need
`
` 19 to break this into each day of a
`
` 20 different IPR, that you can ask
`
` 21 questions as you see fit. But how
`
` 22 would you feel about giving patent
`
` 23 owner the opportunity at the end of
`
` 24 each day to do some form of
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 redirect so that they don't have to
`
` 2 wait 21 hours to do a redirect?
`
` 3 Because I do understand their point
`
` 4 there. It's kind of difficult to
`
` 5 redirect someone at the end of
`
` 6 three days after 21 hours of cross.
`
` 7 Would you be amenable to allowing
`
` 8 them to do some redirect and have a
`
` 9 recross at the end of each day on
`
` 10 what transpired that day?
`
` 11 MS. GORDNIA: So as sort of an
`
` 12 organizational scheme, we would be
`
` 13 amenable to that, but only if
`
` 14 they're not permitted to coach or
`
` 15 speak with the witness in between
`
` 16 the cross and redirect. And
`
` 17 also -- even in between the days.
`
` 18 So, for example, there may be an
`
` 19 issue that we ask about on day one
`
` 20 and it resurfaces on day two. And
`
` 21 because they've gone home on day
`
` 22 one and spoken with the witness and
`
` 23 coached the witness, now that
`
` 24 witness's testimony is no longer
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 proper on day two.
`
` 2 So just because of the way that
`
` 3 this -- basically because of the
`
` 4 way the declaration was written and
`
` 5 the fact that the specification is
`
` 6 the same for all four patents,
`
` 7 there is a lot of opportunity for
`
` 8 the witness to say something that
`
` 9 causes us to go back to an issue.
`
` 10 And, again, if that issue was
`
` 11 addressed on day one and then the
`
` 12 witness was coached that evening,
`
` 13 that's obviously a problem. So to
`
` 14 the extent that they want to have
`
` 15 some time to do redirect and
`
` 16 recross at the end of each day,
`
` 17 that's fine. But we are very much
`
` 18 concerned with their plan to
`
` 19 essentially coach -- coach their
`
` 20 witness, especially given that, you
`
` 21 know, they provided one declaration
`
` 22 and that they didn't raise this
`
` 23 issue until just yesterday, even
`
` 24 though our depo notice was served
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 weeks ago and made pretty clear
`
` 2 what we were intending to do. But,
`
` 3 as counsel mentioned, they may not
`
` 4 have looked at it carefully enough
`
` 5 until yesterday.
`
` 6 THE COURT: Okay. I appreciate
`
` 7 your concerns, Ms. Gordnia. Let me
`
` 8 put a little bit of a finer point
`
` 9 on it here and see if this helps.
`
` 10 We do have some cases from the
`
` 11 Board that indicate that between
`
` 12 cross and redirect, that a counsel
`
` 13 can confer with their witness.
`
` 14 What if we were to do something
`
` 15 like on each day, patent owner's
`
` 16 counsel can do a redirect on the
`
` 17 issues that were raised that day
`
` 18 and can confer with their witness
`
` 19 between cross and redirect. You
`
` 20 would then have an opportunity to
`
` 21 recross that day. But the end of
`
` 22 the deposition for that day, they
`
` 23 wouldn't be able to confer with
`
` 24 their witness about substance
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 overnight for the next day.
`
` 2 Would that ease your concerns?
`
` 3 And I also will note that,
`
` 4 while we do permit conferences
`
` 5 between cross and redirect, you
`
` 6 know, if the record appears to be a
`
` 7 significant amount of coaching, or
`
` 8 any coaching for that matter,
`
` 9 that's an issue that will go to the
`
` 10 credibility of the witness. So
`
` 11 that's not something that we won't
`
` 12 consider. Does that sound like a
`
` 13 reasonable comprise to you,
`
` 14 Ms. Gordnia?
`
` 15 MS. GORDNIA: Well, just for
`
` 16 clarification, what does conferring
`
` 17 between cross and redirect entail?
`
` 18 I mean, to what extent -- what is
`
` 19 the purpose of that? Is it to tell
`
` 20 the witness how to answer the
`
` 21 redirect questions, or is it -- I
`
` 22 mean, I guess I'm not even seeing
`
` 23 why patent owner has a need to
`
` 24 confer with the expert in between.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 I understand that there might be
`
` 2 some cases that touch on this, and
`
` 3 given the timing, we haven't had an
`
` 4 opportunity to do the research, but
`
` 5 I -- nevertheless, I'm concerned
`
` 6 that there may be -- you know,
`
` 7 conferring is -- potentially can be
`
` 8 construed by patent owner counsel
`
` 9 to mean something more than just --
`
` 10 THE COURT: So you wouldn't
`
` 11 have a problem with any sort of
`
` 12 meeting/discussion between counsel
`
` 13 and their witness at any time
`
` 14 during the 21 hours?
`
` 15 MS. GORDNIA: Not any sort of
`
` 16 discussion. But I was looking for
`
` 17 some clarity on what "confer" means
`
` 18 and what the limits are, I think
`
` 19 mostly for the benefit of patent-
`
` 20 owner counsel, so that they
`
` 21 understand what the outer limits
`
` 22 are of what they can discuss with
`
` 23 their witness.
`
` 24 THE COURT: All right.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 Mr. Lewry, I've thrown a few
`
` 2 proposals on the table. How do you
`
` 3 respond to them and what kind of
`
` 4 conferences with your witness do
`
` 5 you entail?
`
` 6 MR. LEWRY: The proposal you
`
` 7 put out where we would, at the end
`
` 8 of each day, be able to do a
`
` 9 redirect and then we could confer
`
` 10 for purposes of that redirect only,
`
` 11 and then overnight not have any
`
` 12 further discussions, and certainly
`
` 13 no coaching, that was -- that
`
` 14 crossed my mind also as you were
`
` 15 discussing this. And so to me,
`
` 16 that seems like the reasonable
`
` 17 conclusion here.
`
` 18 My proposal would be that, as
`
` 19 you suggested, that, you know, at
`
` 20 the end of each day, we break. If
`
` 21 we have redirect issues, we're
`
` 22 allowed to confer with our witness
`
` 23 about the redirect issues and
`
` 24 certainly not coach the answers or
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 anything like that, but at least
`
` 2 alert the witness to the redirect
`
` 3 topics that we want to cover, and
`
` 4 then do that redirect, and then, of
`
` 5 course, if there's recross, they
`
` 6 can do recross that day. And then
`
` 7 overnight, we would have no
`
` 8 substantive communications with the
`
` 9 witness on the testimony or
`
` 10 anything else like that. That
`
` 11 seems reasonable.
`
` 12 THE COURT: Okay. And that's a
`
` 13 proposal you would agree to?
`
` 14 MR. LEWRY: Yes.
`
` 15 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Gordnia,
`
` 16 with his explanation that he could
`
` 17 alert his witness as to the topics
`
` 18 he would like to discuss on
`
` 19 redirect but not provide any
`
` 20 discussion as to what the answers
`
` 21 to those questions would be, is
`
` 22 that acceptable to you?
`
` 23 MS. GORDNIA: That is
`
` 24 acceptable, Your Honor.
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 23
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`
` 2 I am going to place you on a brief
`
` 3 hold here to confer with my
`
` 4 colleagues. I'll be back in just a
`
` 5 minute.
`
` 6 (Off-the-record discussion from
`
` 7 12:06 p.m. to 12:07 p.m.)
`
` 8 THE COURT: So let me reiterate
`
` 9 what I think it sounds like we've
`
` 10 reached -- the parties have reached
`
` 11 an agreement on how to handle this
`
` 12 deposition. So you've got three
`
` 13 days of depositions. Each day
`
` 14 petitioner can do cross-examination
`
` 15 for seven hours. It is not limited
`
` 16 to any specific IPR on any specific
`
` 17 day.
`
` 18 At the end of the seven hours,
`
` 19 patent owner may do a redirect, and
`
` 20 then following that, petitioner may
`
` 21 do a recross. In between the end
`
` 22 of cross-examination for the day
`
` 23 and the start of redirect, patent
`
` 24 owner may confer with the witness
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 24
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 to alert them as to the topics that
`
` 2 they wish to discuss during the
`
` 3 redirect but may not provide any
`
` 4 substantive indications about
`
` 5 answers to those questions.
`
` 6 After the end of the deposition
`
` 7 for each day, after there is any
`
` 8 recross, after that deposition
`
` 9 ends, patent owner may not confer
`
` 10 substantively with their witness
`
` 11 about the case.
`
` 12 Does that accurately reflect
`
` 13 what we've discussed and what the
`
` 14 parties agree to, Ms. Gordnia?
`
` 15 MS. GORDNIA: That sounds
`
` 16 correct, Your Honor.
`
` 17 THE COURT: Mr. Lewry, does
`
` 18 that sound right to you?
`
` 19 MR. LEWRY: Yes, it does.
`
` 20 THE COURT: So with that, I
`
` 21 think we have given some guidance,
`
` 22 and the parties have reached an
`
` 23 agreement as to this issue. While
`
` 24 we're on the line, Ms. Gordnia, are
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 25
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 there any other issues you'd like
`
` 2 to discuss?
`
` 3 MS. GORDNIA: None at this
`
` 4 time. Thank you for giving us your
`
` 5 time on such short notice. We
`
` 6 appreciate it.
`
` 7 THE COURT: Sure thing.
`
` 8 Mr. Lewry, anything from you?
`
` 9 MR. LEWRY: Nothing further.
`
` 10 Thank you.
`
` 11 THE COURT: Okay. If issues do
`
` 12 arise about the agreement that
`
` 13 you've all reached, you know,
`
` 14 please reach out to us again. But
`
` 15 it sounds like the deposition can
`
` 16 move smoothly from here. So with
`
` 17 that said, thank you all.
`
` 18 This call is adjourned.
`
` 19
`
` 20 * * * * * * * *
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
`Golkow Litigation Services
`
`Page 26
`
`
`
`June 21, 2017
`
` 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
` 2 I, Greta H. Duckett, Certified Court
`
` 3 Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter,
`
` 4 and Certified Realtime Reporter, hereby
`
` 5 certify that on Wednesday, June 21, 2017, I
`
` 6 reported the TELEPHONE CONFERENCE in the
`
` 7 matter of the foregoing cause, and that the
`
` 8 pages herein contain a true and accur