`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 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
`
`10142440
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10142440
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Case IPR2016-01397
`Patent 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 42.6 that a complete copy of
`
`the TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 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
`CHRMC0111IPR1@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 IPR2016-01397
`Patent 9,019,838
`
`
`
`10142440
`
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - -
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6· ·JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,· · · · ) Case IPR2016-01389
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,· · ) Patent No. 8,155,012 B2
`
`·8· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · ·) Case IPR2016-01391
`
`·9· ·CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,· · · · ·) Patent No. 8,942,107 B2
`
`10· · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.· ) Case IPR2016-01397
`
`11· ·-· -· -· -· -· -· -· -· -· -· ·) Patent No. 9,019,838 B2
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Case IPR2016-01399
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Patent No. 8,902,760 B2
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16· · · · · · · · TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
`17· · · · ·BEFORE KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON AND
`
`18· · · ·ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ·TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · 12:30 P.M.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported by:
`
`24· · · · · · TERI J. NELSON
`
`25· · · · · · CSR NO. 7682
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Reporter's Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`·2· ·before Karl D. Easthom, Gregg I. Anderson and
`
`·3· ·Robert J. Weinschenk, Administrative Patent Judges,
`
`·4· ·Tuesday, February 21, 2017, 12:30 P.M., before
`
`·5· ·Teri J. Nelson, CSR No. 7682, pursuant to Notice.
`
`·6
`
`·7· ·APPEARANCES (All Telephonic):
`
`·8
`
`·9· ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES:
`
`10· · · · · · JUDGE KARL D. EASTHOM
`
`11· · · · · · JUDGE GREGG I. ANDERSON
`
`12· · · · · · JUDGE ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK
`
`13
`
`14· ·FOR PETITIONER JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.:
`
`15· · · · · · IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`16· · · · · · BY:· MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQ.
`
`17· · · · · · · · ·TALIN GORDNIA, ESQ.
`
`18· · · · · · 1800 Avenue of the Stars
`
`19· · · · · · Suite 900
`
`20· · · · · · Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`
`21· · · · · · 310-277-1010
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES (All Telephonic)(Continued):
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·FOR PATENT OWNER CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.:
`
`·4· · · · · · BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`·5· · · · · · BY:· FRANK ANGILERI, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·THOMAS LEWRY, ESQ.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·CHRISTOPHER SMITH, ESQ.
`
`·8· · · · · · 1000 Town Center
`
`·9· · · · · · 22nd Floor
`
`10· · · · · · Southfield, Michigan 48075-1238
`
`11· · · · · · 248-358-4400
`
`12· · · · · · -and-
`
`13· · · · · · REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
`
`14· · · · · · BY:· RICHARD W. HOFFMAN, ESQ.
`
`15· · · · · · 755 West Big Beaver Road
`
`16· · · · · · Suite 1850
`
`17· · · · · · Troy, Michigan 48084
`
`18· · · · · · 248-689-3500
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · 12:30 P.M.
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Hello, this is Judge Easthom
`
`·5· ·from the Patent Office.
`
`·6· · · · · · We have Judge Anderson and Judge Weinschenk on
`
`·7· ·the phone.
`
`·8· · · · · · Also, I think I interrupted somebody.
`
`·9· · · · · · It sounded like a court reporter; is that
`
`10· ·correct?
`
`11· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes, sir.
`
`12· · · · · · Teri Nelson with DTI.
`
`13· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Oh, thank you, Ms. Nelson.
`
`14· · · · · · Go ahead.
`
`15· · · · · · Were you trying to get people -- people to
`
`16· ·report in?
`
`17· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes, I think we were just trying
`
`18· ·to get the names of everybody who's on the call.
`
`19· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Great.
`
`20· · · · · · Could we just start over for the -- so that the
`
`21· ·Judges can hear, myself included?
`
`22· · · · · · I just joined on.
`
`23· · · · · · I apologize.
`
`24· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Certainly.
`
`25· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Start over with --
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Sure.
`
`·2· · · · · · This is --
`
`·3· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Hi, Your Honor.
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Hello.
`
`·5· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Your Honor, this is Talin Gordnia
`
`·6· ·and Mike Fleming from the law firm of Irell & Manella,
`
`·7· ·and we represent the Petitioner Juniper.
`
`·8· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Great.
`
`·9· · · · · · Okay.· Welcome, Ms. Gordnia and Mr. Fleming.
`
`10· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Your Honor, this is Frank
`
`11· ·Angileri, and with me are Tom Lewry and Chris Smith.
`
`12· ·We're from Brooks Kushman, which, just to refresh the
`
`13· ·Court's recollection, we're the new firm in this case.
`
`14· · · · · · And I'm not sure you're familiar.· We're in
`
`15· ·because of a conflict from prior lead counsel, and there
`
`16· ·were motions filed yesterday to handle the withdrawal.
`
`17· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Right.
`
`18· · · · · · Mr. Angileri, you're the new lead, correct, for
`
`19· ·Patent Owner?
`
`20· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· That's correct.
`
`21· · · · · · And one of the reasons for just raising that
`
`22· ·with you now is I want to make sure that the Board is
`
`23· ·okay with me speaking.· I wasn't sure if that motion had
`
`24· ·been granted yet.
`
`25· · · · · · And Justin Cohen is not on the line right now.
`
`
`
`·1· ·He's the former lead.
`
`·2· · · · · · And if the Board needs him, I can try to get him
`
`·3· ·on, but I just wanted to make sure we have who you need.
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· And just FYI, Rick Hoffman is also
`
`·5· ·on the line for Reising Ethington.
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Great.
`
`·7· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· For the Patent Owner.
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· For the Patent Owner, right.
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· One second, please, Mr. Hoffman.
`
`10· · · · · · Okay.· I don't think we have any problem with
`
`11· ·whether or not we grant the motion at this point.
`
`12· · · · · · We're not -- I think we told you to file your
`
`13· ·mandatory notice, Mr. -- Mr. Angileri --
`
`14· · · · · · Mr. Angileri?
`
`15· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Angileri.
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Angileri.
`
`17· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· And yes, we did file the new
`
`18· ·mandatory notice for a new power of attorney --
`
`19· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Great.
`
`20· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· -- with the motion to withdraw.
`
`21· ·Justin Cohen, the former lead, filed those documents
`
`22· ·yesterday.
`
`23· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Great.
`
`24· · · · · · So we have Mr. Angileri and Mr. Hoffman for
`
`25· ·Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · And one second.
`
`·2· · · · · · Let me get -- okay.
`
`·3· · · · · · And then I'm probably not going to pronounce
`
`·4· ·this right.
`
`·5· · · · · · Is it Gordinia?
`
`·6· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Gordnia, Your Honor.
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Gordnia for Petitioner.
`
`·8· ·Gordnia.
`
`·9· · · · · · Okay.· Thank you.
`
`10· · · · · · And then we have Mr. Fleming; correct?
`
`11· · · · · · MR. FLEMING:· That's correct.
`
`12· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Great.
`
`13· · · · · · So I understand there's some -- something we're
`
`14· ·supposed to work out here, we're trying to get a schedule
`
`15· ·worked out, and I know the parties have sent in three
`
`16· ·dates.· These are for cases IPR2016-1389, 1391, 1397 and
`
`17· ·1399, and we have the -- we have -- it's Juniper Networks
`
`18· ·versus Chrimar Systems, Inc.?
`
`19· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`20· · · · · · This is Frank Angileri.
`
`21· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Thank you, Mr. Angileri.
`
`22· · · · · · And then we -- I know that the parties sent in
`
`23· ·three proposed dates for the hearing, so that's 8/23,
`
`24· ·8/24 and 8/31; is that correct, Mr. Angileri?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· So it looks like we have
`
`·2· ·due date 7 worked out.
`
`·3· · · · · · We'll -- the Board will pick one of those three,
`
`·4· ·if that's -- if that's okay with the parties, and I
`
`·5· ·assume that's what you've agreed upon; is that correct,
`
`·6· ·Ms. Gordinia -- Gordnia?
`
`·7· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· That --
`
`·8· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Sorry.
`
`·9· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· That's correct.· Yes.
`
`10· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`11· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.
`
`12· · · · · · Okay.· So -- so we just have to work out these
`
`13· ·other six dates; is that correct, due dates 1 through 6?
`
`14· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`15· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· So why don't you go
`
`16· ·ahead, Mr. Angileri, and tell us what the story is on
`
`17· ·those, please.
`
`18· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Sure.
`
`19· · · · · · To sort of put the lead first, Your Honor, we
`
`20· ·would like to get the -- a schedule that allows us to
`
`21· ·move due date 1 into early April.
`
`22· · · · · · The reason is -- is simply that Chrimar's prior
`
`23· ·lead counsel became aware of a conflict I believe in late
`
`24· ·January.· We don't have personal information of all the
`
`25· ·details.· We got involved relatively soon thereafter.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · We have entered appearances for Chrimar in some
`
`·2· ·state and District Court litigation, but we do not have,
`
`·3· ·or at least at the time, rather, we did not have
`
`·4· ·familiarity with the prior art, and then we have other
`
`·5· ·personal and professional conflicts in late March that of
`
`·6· ·course we had before Chrimar came to us with this matter,
`
`·7· ·but we are stepping up to represent Chrimar.
`
`·8· · · · · · So really in an effort to prevent Chrimar from
`
`·9· ·being prejudiced, we're hoping to get our opening brief
`
`10· ·moved into -- the Patent Owner response moved into, like,
`
`11· ·the second week in April, if possible.· We think that --
`
`12· ·that lines up with the due dates that the Board has
`
`13· ·proposed.· We were okay with the due dates in September
`
`14· ·as well, but -- rather the due date 7 that the Board has
`
`15· ·proposed, we were okay with the due date 7 in September,
`
`16· ·but they did not work for Petitioner, so we're obviously
`
`17· ·good also with the due dates in late August, but we think
`
`18· ·that a schedule more on the lines of some of the existing
`
`19· ·schedules can -- can be achieved for all four of the IPRs
`
`20· ·and -- and then still have our due date 1 in the second
`
`21· ·week in April.
`
`22· · · · · · So that's what we're asking for.
`
`23· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Thank you, Mr. Angileri.
`
`24· · · · · · And Ms. Gordin- -- Gordnia, I'm sorry again, can
`
`25· ·you explain why that's a problem for the Petitioner,
`
`
`
`·1· ·please?
`
`·2· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Sure.
`
`·3· · · · · · Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`·4· · · · · · So just -- just to start, the mandatory notices
`
`·5· ·that Chrimar filed yesterday reflect that Mr. Rick
`
`·6· ·Hoffman, who has been counsel for the Patent Owner, is
`
`·7· ·continuing to stay on as counsel for the Patent Owner, so
`
`·8· ·we just want to note for the record that it's not a
`
`·9· ·complete change in counsel that's happening here.
`
`10· · · · · · Also, we -- we were happy with the existing
`
`11· ·schedule that the Board has set for the four IPRs, and
`
`12· ·particularly once it became clear that the hearing date
`
`13· ·would be changing pursuant to Chrimar's request of the
`
`14· ·Board and that there would be one common hearing date for
`
`15· ·all four, we proposed to Chrimar to keep the original
`
`16· ·schedules as is as set by the Board for the 1391, 1397
`
`17· ·and 1399 IPRs because that allowed for us to have the
`
`18· ·hearing date within the time frame provided by the Board,
`
`19· ·but we did agree to -- we agreed with them to change the
`
`20· ·1389 schedule to the dates that they had last proposed to
`
`21· ·the Board and to only change that -- that IPR schedule
`
`22· ·because that's the only one that needs to be changed in
`
`23· ·light of the new hearing dates.
`
`24· · · · · · And I'm happy to read those dates off.
`
`25· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· No.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · I think -- I think I have them.· I think I
`
`·2· ·have -- we have all the dates --
`
`·3· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Okay.
`
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· -- you E-mailed us, but --
`
`·5· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Sure.
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· -- you know, I appreciate that.
`
`·7· · · · · · I'm just trying to look at the schedule.
`
`·8· · · · · · So that -- that wouldn't really accommodate --
`
`·9· ·that wouldn't accommodate petition -- Patent Owner's
`
`10· ·problem that they said they have with lack of -- I know
`
`11· ·you said Mr. Hoffman's here, but Mr. Angileri's trying to
`
`12· ·get on -- up to speed, it sounds like, with the --
`
`13· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Exactly.
`
`14· · · · · · Well, so we -- on our last call with counsel for
`
`15· ·Chrimar this morning, we offered as a compromise position
`
`16· ·to change -- because they're interested in having a
`
`17· ·common schedule, we proposed to them using the existing
`
`18· ·1399 and 97 schedules for all IPRs, and what that does is
`
`19· ·it moves their first response date from March 8th out to
`
`20· ·March 23rd and giving them extra time there, and they
`
`21· ·said that that still was not enough time, so we offered
`
`22· ·to move that due date 1 from March 23rd to March 30th and
`
`23· ·to make that the common deadline, so that's giving them
`
`24· ·20-some additional days on the 1391 and an extra week on
`
`25· ·the 1397 and 99.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · And just -- just to step back, we -- we heard
`
`·2· ·Chrimar's counsel say that there's been a conflict, but
`
`·3· ·all we know is that there's an alleged conflict, and
`
`·4· ·there's some personal date conflicts that's also driving
`
`·5· ·their request for a new schedule.
`
`·6· · · · · · And there's nothing in the record, there's no
`
`·7· ·evidence showing good cause for why these schedules need
`
`·8· ·to change, and it seems that if the schedules are to
`
`·9· ·change so drastically, for example Chrimar is asking for
`
`10· ·a one-month extension on their first response date, we
`
`11· ·think that Chrimar should put in the record justification
`
`12· ·for good cause and file a motion for why the schedule
`
`13· ·needs to -- to change and why they need additional time
`
`14· ·because currently, there's nothing in the record
`
`15· ·justifying this change or showing good cause.
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· So I think I understand
`
`17· ·what you're saying.
`
`18· · · · · · It sounds like you're a week off, basically,
`
`19· ·then, is that right, for the March 30th versus April 7th?
`
`20· · · · · · Is that --
`
`21· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Yes.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· You offered --
`
`23· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· I'm sorry.
`
`24· · · · · · I didn't mean to talk over you, Your Honor.
`
`25· · · · · · This is Frank Angileri.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · I'll stop.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· No, that's fine, I -- as long as
`
`·3· ·the court reporter can -- and I -- it's probably my
`
`·4· ·problem for not ending the sentence abruptly enough for
`
`·5· ·you.
`
`·6· · · · · · But anyway, let me talk to my panel here for a
`
`·7· ·second.
`
`·8· · · · · · I'm going to put everybody in -- on mute for one
`
`·9· ·second.
`
`10· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Your Honor, would you like for us
`
`11· ·to just read off the dates, the last set of dates that we
`
`12· ·offered so that you have them?
`
`13· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Yeah, that would help, actually.
`
`14· ·Yeah.
`
`15· · · · · · Why don't you do that, Ms. Gordnia?
`
`16· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Sure.
`
`17· · · · · · So the last dates we offered going from the due
`
`18· ·date 1 off and to due date 7 is March 30th for due
`
`19· ·date 1, June 22nd for due date 2, June 29th for due
`
`20· ·date 3, July 13th for due date 4, July 27th for due
`
`21· ·date 5, August 3rd for due date 6, and of course the
`
`22· ·Board will set due date 7 for the hearing.
`
`23· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· So you didn't really --
`
`24· ·okay.
`
`25· · · · · · Okay.· I see.· I think I understand.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Let me just ask Mr. Angileri, then.
`
`·2· · · · · · Is that -- is -- was your main problem the 3/30
`
`·3· ·date -- I mean the 4/30 date?· I'm sorry.· The March 30th
`
`·4· ·date?
`
`·5· · · · · · What about the other five dates?
`
`·6· · · · · · Are those problems for you too, the offer that
`
`·7· ·aloud Ms. Gordnia just proposed?
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Mostly -- you know what,
`
`·9· ·Your Honor?
`
`10· · · · · · I think -- let me answer -- I think there were
`
`11· ·two questions.
`
`12· · · · · · So yes, the principal problem with the
`
`13· ·March 30 date, as I mentioned to Ms. Gordnia in the call
`
`14· ·that we had before, we have personal and professional
`
`15· ·conflicts that last through two months.· We have certain
`
`16· ·date deadlines in other cases, and those have been set a
`
`17· ·long time before we got involved, so there's a material
`
`18· ·difference for us been March 30 and April 7.
`
`19· · · · · · And then --
`
`20· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Let me just interrupt you
`
`21· ·again.
`
`22· · · · · · Ms. Gordnia, can you explain why that's a
`
`23· ·problem for you, the one-week difference, please?
`
`24· · · · · · How is that hurting the Petitioner?
`
`25· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· So just the setback.· The
`
`
`
`·1· ·Petitioner is being prejudiced just by the mere fact that
`
`·2· ·we're talking about pushing these schedules out by so
`
`·3· ·much, a month plus, almost, we're talking about here.
`
`·4· · · · · · So we're just in a position of trying to protect
`
`·5· ·our -- our client's interest here, and we -- we think
`
`·6· ·that this is a prejudice to -- to our -- our client.
`
`·7· · · · · · And also, we're getting less time for the oral
`
`·8· ·hearing if we push everything back.
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Okay.· I think I -- I
`
`10· ·see.
`
`11· · · · · · The -- the main prejudice is compressing the
`
`12· ·hearing schedule, then?
`
`13· · · · · · That's the only thing I've heard right now.
`
`14· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· And of course the fact that the
`
`15· ·Patent Owner is getting month -- a month plus time.
`
`16· · · · · · And also, we're -- now we have Board hearings in
`
`17· ·one -- in one where originally we had three on one date
`
`18· ·and one on another, so that's also something that
`
`19· ·we're -- we're losing here by having everything
`
`20· ·compressed into one hearing --
`
`21· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.
`
`22· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· -- and that happened because
`
`23· ·Chrimar asked the Board to change the hearing date.
`
`24· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.
`
`25· · · · · · Okay.· Thank you.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Let me -- let me get back to my panel, and then
`
`·2· ·we'll discuss this for a little bit, and then we'll get
`
`·3· ·right back.· I'm going to put everybody on mute for a
`
`·4· ·second.· We'll be right back.
`
`·5· · · · · · (Pause in proceedings.)
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· We -- we've convened and
`
`·7· ·discussed the issue.
`
`·8· · · · · · We're going to split the baby with the bath
`
`·9· ·water, essentially, and give the date April 4th since you
`
`10· ·almost agreed.· We give you credit for that.· I hope that
`
`11· ·helps enough for Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`12· · · · · · And then I think what we'll do is we'll probably
`
`13· ·pick the later 8/31 date for the hearing because that
`
`14· ·way, it won't be as compressed for the Petitioner.
`
`15· · · · · · And that being said, I think -- we don't have
`
`16· ·any other issues unless -- well, I know there's a
`
`17· ·lingering -- we know there's a lingering joinder issue
`
`18· ·with Rutgers, but this almost seems like it may help the
`
`19· ·joinder issue, and the parties seem to agree that that's
`
`20· ·okay for joinder.
`
`21· · · · · · So I don't know.
`
`22· · · · · · Why don't we hear from Petitioner first, and
`
`23· ·then if there are any questions or any comments or any
`
`24· ·last things you want to throw -- throw in, we'll be happy
`
`25· ·to hear from you.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Your Honor, just for
`
`·2· ·clarification, the April 4th date we heard is the new due
`
`·3· ·date 1 for all four IPRs, but what is due date 2?
`
`·4· · · · · · Because essentially by moving that March 30th
`
`·5· ·deadline by a few days would compress the time for
`
`·6· ·Petitioner's reply, so we want to make that --
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Right.
`
`·8· · · · · · Why don't we -- that's a good point.
`
`·9· · · · · · I'm sorry to interrupt.
`
`10· · · · · · I meant to say that.
`
`11· · · · · · We should give you a little extra time.
`
`12· · · · · · So how much time do you need for that reply?
`
`13· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· So a week.
`
`14· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· And then would we --
`
`15· ·then -- I think you -- you -- with -- given this
`
`16· ·guidance, can you -- the parties work out the rest of
`
`17· ·this, or --
`
`18· · · · · · 'Cause I'm sure now they might want to push back
`
`19· ·a week or --
`
`20· · · · · · Patent Owner, is that okay?
`
`21· · · · · · Will due date three weeks from the added week,
`
`22· ·in other words, 6/29 would be now due date 2, so you
`
`23· ·would, what, want a week from that; is that correct,
`
`24· ·Patent Owner?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · You're talking about the -- the difference
`
`·2· ·between due date 2 and due date 3 is one week?
`
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· I think that's what -- it should
`
`·4· ·be longer, actually, I guess.
`
`·5· · · · · · I think that's what Petitioner proposed.
`
`·6· · · · · · That's what I wrote down.
`
`·7· · · · · · I see you have a -- you have one, two -- three
`
`·8· ·weeks proposed there.
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· So Your Honor --
`
`10· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· I'm sorry.
`
`11· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Your Honor, to simplify things, it
`
`12· ·looks like the dates I read off before we went on hold
`
`13· ·were March 30th and June 22nd.
`
`14· · · · · · It sounds like the Board is adding five days to
`
`15· ·March 30th, so we would add that same amount to the
`
`16· ·June 22nd deadline, and we'd keep everything else the
`
`17· ·same.
`
`18· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Oh, so you would keep the
`
`19· ·July 14th date for due date 3 that Patent Owner proposed
`
`20· ·and --
`
`21· · · · · · 'Cause I think you -- you had offered a 6/29
`
`22· ·date, then.
`
`23· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· So -- so only as -- from the dates
`
`24· ·that I changed -- that I read, March 30th is being
`
`25· ·changed to April 5th, and due date 2 is being changed
`
`
`
`·1· ·from June 22nd to June 27th.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Well, we changed it to
`
`·3· ·April 4th.· Wait.· I'm sorry.· April 4th.
`
`·4· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· April 4th.· Okay.· Oh, sorry.
`
`·5· ·April 4th.· That's my mistake.· So April 4th.
`
`·6· · · · · · And then we would add the same number of days,
`
`·7· ·and I'm just checking with a calendar here, so it's a
`
`·8· ·31 day -- March is a 31 day, so we're adding -- so we're
`
`·9· ·adding one, two, three, four -- five days to due date 1,
`
`10· ·making it April 4th, so we would add five days to due
`
`11· ·date 2, making it June 27th, and then everything else
`
`12· ·would stay -- and then everything else would stay the
`
`13· ·same, so due date 3 would be June 29th, due date 4 would
`
`14· ·be July 13th --
`
`15· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Wait a minute.
`
`16· · · · · · I think -- I have July 14th for due date 3.
`
`17· · · · · · Is that wrong?
`
`18· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· No, that's incorrect.
`
`19· · · · · · The dates that I originally read were --
`
`20· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Well, I mean I was going off of
`
`21· ·Patent Owner's proposal for --
`
`22· · · · · · Patent Owner, didn't you propose July 14th for
`
`23· ·due date 3 in your E-mail?
`
`24· · · · · · Did I have that wrong?
`
`25· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Your Honor, yes, we did.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Oh, okay.
`
`·2· · · · · · So then -- then the Board is starting with
`
`·3· ·the -- the deadline or the schedule proposed by the
`
`·4· ·Patent Owner as opposed to the one that we proposed prior
`
`·5· ·to going on hold?
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Correct.· Yeah.· That's right.
`
`·7· ·That's right, Ms. Gordnia.
`
`·8· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Okay.· And so just for the record,
`
`·9· ·we object to that because it's -- we think there is a
`
`10· ·significant prejudice to our client, the Petitioner, by
`
`11· ·moving the schedule so far -- pushing it so far back and
`
`12· ·giving Chrimar essentially a one-month advantage on their
`
`13· ·first response.
`
`14· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· On their first response,
`
`15· ·April 4th.
`
`16· · · · · · Okay.· Well, you would -- you would still have,
`
`17· ·what -- I guess you would still have almost two months
`
`18· ·for your reply.
`
`19· · · · · · Did you want more for your reply?
`
`20· · · · · · Is that the prejudice?
`
`21· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Well, that will be one way to
`
`22· ·address it.
`
`23· · · · · · So if we're making the first deadline April 4th,
`
`24· ·then -- then we could change the --
`
`25· · · · · · I mean we hadn't worked out these dates yet.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · We had worked out the dates that we had
`
`·2· ·proposed.
`
`·3· · · · · · So changing the schedule now --
`
`·4· · · · · · Can we just take a moment to look at just how
`
`·5· ·the dates would play out?
`
`·6· · · · · · It looks like --
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· I think that's fine.
`
`·8· · · · · · I think if we -- another thing we could do is
`
`·9· ·April 4th we start as a starting date, and then we pick
`
`10· ·8/31 as a hearing date.
`
`11· · · · · · It would seem to me the parties could work these
`
`12· ·out.· I don't see a lot of prejudice, to tell you the
`
`13· ·truth, to Petitioner, and if there is, I think you should
`
`14· ·work that out and get however much time you need for your
`
`15· ·reply, and Patent Owner can get their time that they
`
`16· ·need.
`
`17· · · · · · It's just -- I don't want to get involved in too
`
`18· ·much of the nitty-gritty details of working out the
`
`19· ·schedule right now.· You know, if we can help you set
`
`20· ·constraints -- I really don't -- the panel doesn't feel a
`
`21· ·lot of prejudice to Petitioner, especially when you --
`
`22· ·you know, I think you mentioned the compression of the
`
`23· ·schedule up to the hearing date was a big deal, but you
`
`24· ·know, most of these hearings are getting pushed back to
`
`25· ·8/31 from August 8th.· There's only one being moved up.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · So why don't we do that.
`
`·2· · · · · · Let's -- hang on one second.
`
`·3· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Well --
`
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Go ahead.· Go ahead, Ms. --
`
`·5· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· No.
`
`·6· · · · · · I was just going to say if we're going to work
`
`·7· ·out the rest of the dates, at a minimum, I would
`
`·8· ·appreciate it very much, Your Honor, if you would set the
`
`·9· ·reply date.
`
`10· · · · · · So we -- I think we started this conversation
`
`11· ·just a few minutes ago after the hold that we would want
`
`12· ·an extra week, so why don't we just go with that.· If
`
`13· ·April 4th is the response date, then let's add a week to
`
`14· ·the -- to the current due date 2 --
`
`15· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· So --
`
`16· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· -- the 23rd, and we'd add a week
`
`17· ·to it.
`
`18· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· June 30th.
`
`19· · · · · · Is that -- does that work out for you, Patent
`
`20· ·Owner?
`
`21· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Sure.· No problem, Your Honor.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Great.
`
`23· · · · · · So then we'll keep the other dates, July 14th,
`
`24· ·July 28th, August 11th, August 18th?
`
`25· · · · · · Is that due dates 3 through 6?
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Yes.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Great.
`
`·3· · · · · · Okay.· That makes life easy for everyone.
`
`·4· · · · · · I appreciate you working that out.
`
`·5· · · · · · Hang on one second.
`
`·6· · · · · · Let me just check with the panel and see if
`
`·7· ·there are any other issues.
`
`·8· · · · · · (Pause in proceedings.)
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Looks like -- I think we
`
`10· ·can wrap this up.
`
`11· · · · · · Unless there are any other questions, we'll have
`
`12· ·whoever hired the -- the court reporter file the
`
`13· ·transcript in all the cases, of course.
`
`14· · · · · · And then Petitioner, Ms. Gordnia, do you have
`
`15· ·anything else you want to discuss?
`
`16· · · · · · Mr. Fleming?
`
`17· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Not at this time, Your Honor.
`
`18· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.
`
`19· · · · · · MR. FLEMING:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`20· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`21· · · · · · How about you, Mr. Angileri?
`
`22· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· No, Your Honor.
`
`23· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.
`
`24· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Will the Board be issuing a
`
`25· ·schedule on those dates that we just described?
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· No.
`
`·2· · · · · · Can -- why don't we have -- can the parties just
`
`·3· ·file a stipulation to all this?
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Yes.
`
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Do you have the dates?
`
`·6· · · · · · Do you want me to read them that we agreed to
`
`·7· ·again or --
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Let me just -- would you, yes,
`
`·9· ·please read them.
`
`10· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· This is what I -- okay.
`
`11· ·We'll -- we'll -- we'll go through them, make sure we're
`
`12· ·all on the same page.
`
`13· · · · · · Due date 1, I have April 4th, due date 2,
`
`14· ·June 30th, due date 3, July 14th, due date 4, July 28th,
`
`15· ·due date 5, August 11th, due date 6, August 18th, and
`
`16· ·then due date 7, probably 8/31.· I'm pretty sure we --
`
`17· ·the panel looked at that, but we got to double-check to
`
`18· ·make sure that it's open that day.· I didn't check that
`
`19· ·yet.· But the earliest the hearing would be would be 8/24
`
`20· ·if we don't get the 8/31, but we're going to try to do
`
`21· ·the 8/31.
`
`22· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`23· · · · · · And this is Frank Angileri.
`
`24· · · · · · I have one other point.
`
`25· · · · · · You had asked about the joinder.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · On the Patent Owner's side, we just filed today,
`
`·2· ·without opposition to those, based on the statement, the
`
`·3· ·representation that they were going to be sort of, you
`
`·4· ·know, in the background, if you will.
`
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Correct.
`
`·6· · · · · · Okay.· I -- we -- we saw those motions, and I
`
`·7· ·appreciate your reminding us of those, and I appreciate
`
`·8· ·the working out with that.
`
`·9· · · · · · I think with the schedule, it actually might
`
`10· ·help for the joinder to happen, but those dates are
`
`11· ·pretty far out, from what I understand.· I think -- I
`
`12· ·think, if I'm not mistaken, it's 5/11 is when the
`
`13· ·preliminary response is due.
`
`14· · · · · · Is that right?
`
`15· · · · · · I think so.
`
`16· · · · · · Hang on.
`
`17· · · · · · Yeah.
`
`18· · · · · · 5/8, I think the preliminary response is due.
`
`19· · · · · · So yeah, they would be -- if they did get
`
`20· ·joined -- if they were to be joined, then they would
`
`21· ·definitely probably be in the back seat somewhere because
`
`22· ·it doesn't look like that much time to add anything.· You
`
`23· ·will be already well into your reply by then or almost
`
`24· ·into your reply, so -- or Petitioner will, I should say.
`
`25· · · · · · But we'll -- we'll work -- we'll look at that
`
`
`
`·1· ·when we get to it, but it's worth looking into a little
`
`·2· ·bit now.
`
`·3· · · · · · Okay.· Ms. Gordnia, did you want to add
`
`·4· ·anything?
`
`·5· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· No, Your Honor.
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· Okay.· Well, thank you everyone.
`
`·7· · · · · · We're adjourned.
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. ANGILERI:· Thank you.
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE EASTHOM:· And we'll wait for you to send
`
`10· ·in the transcript and then the stipulated revised order
`
`11· ·here.
`
`12· · · · · · Don't -- d
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
