`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10142440
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Talin Gordnia
`
` Talin Gordnia, Reg. 76,214
`
`Michael Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`Jonathan Kagan, Pro Hac Vice
`Nima Hefazi (Reg. No. 63,658)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`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 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
`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
`
`
`August 23, 2017
`
`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· · · · · · · · · ·WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2017
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · 9:04 A.M.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported by:
`
`24· · · · · · TERI J. NELSON
`
`25· · · · · · CSR NO. 7682, RPR
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · Reporter's Transcript of Telephonic Hearing
`
`·2· ·before Karl D. Easthom, Gregg I. Anderson and
`
`·3· ·Robert J. Weinschenk, Administrative Patent Judges,
`
`·4· ·Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 9:04 A.M., before
`
`·5· ·Teri J. Nelson, CSR No. 7682, RPR, 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 (Continued)(All Telephonic):
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·FOR PETITIONER JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. (Continued):
`
`·4· · · · · · DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`·5· · · · · · BY:· CHRISTOPHER J. TYSON, ESQ.
`
`·6· · · · · · 505 9th Street, N.W.
`
`·7· · · · · · Suite 1000
`
`·8· · · · · · Washington, DC 20004-2166
`
`·9· · · · · · 202-776-7800
`
`10· · · · · · -and-
`
`11· · · · · · DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`12· · · · · · BY:· MATTHEW S. YUNGWIRTH, ESQ.
`
`13· · · · · · 1075 Peachtree Street NE
`
`14· · · · · · Suite 2000
`
`15· · · · · · Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3929
`
`16· · · · · · 404-253-6900
`
`17
`
`18· ·FOR PATENT OWNER CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.:
`
`19· · · · · · BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`20· · · · · · BY:· THOMAS LEWRY, ESQ.
`
`21· · · · · · 1000 Town Center
`
`22· · · · · · 22nd Floor
`
`23· · · · · · Southfield, Michigan 48075-1238
`
`24· · · · · · 248-358-4400
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2017
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · 9:04 A.M.
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Good afternoon.
`
`·5· · · · · · This is Judge Weinschenk.
`
`·6· · · · · · With me on the line are Judge Easthom and
`
`·7· ·Judge Anderson.
`
`·8· · · · · · This is a conference call for IPR2016-01389,
`
`·9· ·01391, 01397 and 01399.
`
`10· · · · · · Who do we have on the line for the Petitioner?
`
`11· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Your Honor, you have Talin Gordnia
`
`12· ·and Mike Fleming from Irell & Manella for Petitioners,
`
`13· ·and I believe also on the line are Matt Yungwirth and
`
`14· ·Chris Tyson from Duane Morris also for Petitioners, and
`
`15· ·our court reporter is also on the line.
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· And who will be doing
`
`17· ·the speaking for Petitioner?
`
`18· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· I will, Talin Gordnia, from
`
`19· ·Irell & Manella
`
`20· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Thank you, Ms. Gordnia.
`
`21· · · · · · And since we do have a court reporter on the
`
`22· ·line, I will ask all the parties to identify themselves
`
`23· ·each time they speak.
`
`24· · · · · · And Ms. Gordnia, will you have a copy of the
`
`25· ·transcript filed afterwards?
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· Great.
`
`·3· · · · · · And who do we have on the line for Patent Owner?
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Your Honor, this is Tom Lewry from
`
`·5· ·Brooks Kushman.
`
`·6· · · · · · I'm outnumbered today.· It's just me.
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· I assume you will be
`
`·8· ·doing the speaking, then.
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Yes.
`
`10· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`11· · · · · · All right.· So we have a few E-mails from the
`
`12· ·parties, and it looks like there may be some dispute
`
`13· ·about how to properly use or file supplemental evidence.
`
`14· · · · · · I realize there may be some differences among
`
`15· ·different panelists here about how to do that, but I'm
`
`16· ·going to give a quick overview of the way it works
`
`17· ·because that may help clarify the parties' positions, so
`
`18· ·I'll start there, and then we'll turn to the parties.
`
`19· · · · · · Generally speaking, a party can file an
`
`20· ·objection to evidence, and then in response to that
`
`21· ·objection, the other party may serve, but not yet file,
`
`22· ·supplemental evidence to oppress those objections.
`
`23· · · · · · If the party who previously filed the objection
`
`24· ·and preserved that objection by filing a motion to
`
`25· ·exclude, the other party who previously served their
`
`

`

`·1· ·supplemental evidence may use that supplemental evidence
`
`·2· ·in opposing the motion to exclude.
`
`·3· · · · · · So with that said, I believe it was Patent Owner
`
`·4· ·who requested this call initially, so why don't we start
`
`·5· ·with you, Mr. Lewry, and tell us about what the issue is.
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Thank you.
`
`·7· · · · · · Yes, this is Tom Lewry.
`
`·8· · · · · · So the issue for us is the question of, and part
`
`·9· ·of what you've just explained, what's the proper
`
`10· ·procedure for submitting the supplemental evidence after
`
`11· ·the motion to exclude has been filed and -- and the
`
`12· ·response is being filed.
`
`13· · · · · · It was our understanding through a contact by --
`
`14· ·with the Board that we were to request in a motion to
`
`15· ·file that, and so that's the process that we thought we
`
`16· ·were undertaking, and then we -- we learned that the
`
`17· ·Petitioner had filed their supplemental evidence along
`
`18· ·with their -- with their brief, their opposition brief to
`
`19· ·the motion to exclude, and from what you're -- what
`
`20· ·you've explained, it sounds like that was the proper
`
`21· ·procedure, and perhaps that's what we should have done
`
`22· ·when we filed our motion to exclude, so that was our --
`
`23· ·essentially our misunderstanding.
`
`24· · · · · · But where we are now is that there are three
`
`25· ·exhibits, supplemental exhibits from the Patent Owner's
`
`

`

`·1· ·side, that we would like to file.
`
`·2· · · · · · Two of them are in dispute, and one of them is
`
`·3· ·not.
`
`·4· · · · · · So the two that are in dispute we've identified
`
`·5· ·as Exhibits 2052 and 2053, and the one that is not in
`
`·6· ·dispute is identified as Exhibit 2054.
`
`·7· · · · · · The --
`
`·8· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· So let me stop you for just a
`
`·9· ·second, Mr. Lewry.
`
`10· · · · · · This is Judge Weinschenk.
`
`11· · · · · · You previously served these exhibits in response
`
`12· ·to objections; is that correct?
`
`13· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Correct.
`
`14· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· And there's no dispute
`
`15· ·about whether you timely served them.
`
`16· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· That's correct.
`
`17· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· You can continue.
`
`18· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· And so in answering Petitioners'
`
`19· ·motion to exclude, we raised two issues, essentially.
`
`20· · · · · · The first was that we had the view, and this is
`
`21· ·not -- we're not arguing this on this hearing --
`
`22· ·motion -- or on this call today, but I wanted to give it
`
`23· ·as background, we're arguing that the motion to exclude
`
`24· ·exceeded the scope of the objections that were served.
`
`25· · · · · · And then the second point, of course, is that
`
`

`

`·1· ·our -- we did have supplemental evidence -- we do have
`
`·2· ·supplemental evidence that -- that's forced the issues
`
`·3· ·raised in the objections and then ultimately in the
`
`·4· ·motion to exclude to the extent Petitioners claim that
`
`·5· ·their motion to exclude is co-extensive with their
`
`·6· ·objections.
`
`·7· · · · · · And so it's the latter point that we're trying
`
`·8· ·to address on this call, which is to the extent the
`
`·9· ·Petitioners are contending that their motion to exclude
`
`10· ·is co-extensive with their objections, we have the
`
`11· ·supplemental evidence that we would like to file, the
`
`12· ·supplemental evidence being Exhibits 2052 and 2053 that
`
`13· ·are in dispute and, again, 2054 also, but that is not in
`
`14· ·dispute.
`
`15· · · · · · And so to explain that in further detail,
`
`16· ·Petitioners' mo- -- objections is Paper 30 in the
`
`17· ·IPR2016-01389, so that is one of the four IPRs, and in
`
`18· ·that IPR, Paper Number 30, they, Petitioners, objected to
`
`19· ·our Exhibit 2038, which was a declaration of our expert,
`
`20· ·and they had a number of generalized statements, and then
`
`21· ·they specifically identified five paragraphs of the
`
`22· ·declaration to which they were objecting.
`
`23· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Mr. Lewry, I'm going to stop
`
`24· ·you for a second 'cause I don't think we necessarily need
`
`25· ·to get into the merits of all the objections in the
`
`

`

`·1· ·motion to exclude, but I do have a specific question for
`
`·2· ·you in that I haven't looked at the merits of the
`
`·3· ·briefings, but I did take a look at these exhibits, and I
`
`·4· ·do see where in your opposition to Petitioners' motion to
`
`·5· ·exclude you cite Exhibit 2054, but I didn't see anywhere
`
`·6· ·in there where you cited Exhibits 2052 or 2053.· You
`
`·7· ·listed them on your exhibit list, but then you didn't
`
`·8· ·actually rely on them in your opposition.
`
`·9· · · · · · So if you didn't rely on them, why do you need
`
`10· ·to file them?
`
`11· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· I guess it's the belt and suspenders
`
`12· ·concept because to the extent that the Petitioners
`
`13· ·contend that they are -- they have preserved their
`
`14· ·objections in their motion to exclude, we would like to
`
`15· ·file them.
`
`16· · · · · · We don't think they have, but that's the reason.
`
`17· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· I guess that begs the
`
`18· ·question, though, if you never explained to us why these
`
`19· ·exhibits cure the alleged objection, then how are we
`
`20· ·supposed to know?
`
`21· · · · · · I mean if you haven't made the argument, then
`
`22· ·just filing the exhibit doesn't do you any good; right?
`
`23· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· I suppose that's true.
`
`24· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`25· · · · · · All right.· Well, I think I understand what's
`
`

`

`·1· ·happened here, but let me hear from Petitioner as to why
`
`·2· ·they have an objection to them filing this, these
`
`·3· ·exhibits, 2052 and 2053.
`
`·4· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`·5· · · · · · This is at Talin Gordnia for Petitioners.
`
`·6· · · · · · Your Honor, I'll just echo the same issues you
`
`·7· ·just raised, which is these are exhibits that are not
`
`·8· ·referenced or relied on in any way in Chrimar -- Patent
`
`·9· ·Owner Chrimar's opposition to Petitioners' motion to
`
`10· ·exclude, and by contrast, Exhibit 2054 is, and for that
`
`11· ·reason, we -- we identified that -- that -- that they
`
`12· ·were -- we didn't have an objection to them submitting
`
`13· ·2054, and the Exhibits 2052, 2053 are not referenced in
`
`14· ·any paper, and so having them into evidence, as you said,
`
`15· ·is -- is improper and would serve no purpose.
`
`16· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Well, I guess the question I
`
`17· ·have for you, then, is:· Is there any prejudice in
`
`18· ·letting them file this?
`
`19· · · · · · I mean lots of times people file exhibits, and
`
`20· ·if they don't reference them in the papers anywhere, we
`
`21· ·just don't consider them.
`
`22· · · · · · So if we let the Patent Owner file them, is
`
`23· ·there any real prejudice to you if they haven't actually
`
`24· ·argued them, and then we don't consider them?
`
`25· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · Again, this is Talin Gordnia.
`
`·2· · · · · · The documents in question are a declaration,
`
`·3· ·essentially supplemental declaration from Chrimar's
`
`·4· ·expert and -- and an exhibit that goes along with it, and
`
`·5· ·it's discussed in that declaration, it's essentially a
`
`·6· ·supplemental declaration from their expert, and we would
`
`·7· ·be prejudiced to have this in the record at this late
`
`·8· ·stage without any sort of briefing on it or any
`
`·9· ·opportunity to respond to it.
`
`10· · · · · · And again, because it's not responsive to any of
`
`11· ·the issues that they've raised in their opposition to our
`
`12· ·motion to exclude, we think it's unnecessary and also
`
`13· ·very prejudicial because of what it is.
`
`14· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· So do you think they're going
`
`15· ·to attempt to try to rely on it at some later part of the
`
`16· ·trial?
`
`17· · · · · · Is that what you're worried about?
`
`18· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Exactly.
`
`19· · · · · · It may be an oral argument.
`
`20· · · · · · It may be on appeal.
`
`21· · · · · · We don't know what they plan to do with it.
`
`22· · · · · · Obviously they have a reason for why they want
`
`23· ·it in the record and why they're going through this and
`
`24· ·having us go through this call, so clearly they have some
`
`25· ·reason.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · I don't know what belt and suspenders theory
`
`·2· ·they're referring to, but the matter is that they have
`
`·3· ·not filed -- these aren't exhibits that are proper and --
`
`·4· ·and proper to attach their opposition, and they're not
`
`·5· ·referenced in any other paper, so we wouldn't have an
`
`·6· ·opportunity to respond to them, and we just don't know
`
`·7· ·how they plan to use it.· They shouldn't use it, but we
`
`·8· ·don't know what they plan to do with it, and it -- there
`
`·9· ·would be significant prejudice to Petitioners because of
`
`10· ·that.
`
`11· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· Thank you,
`
`12· ·Ms. Gordnia.
`
`13· · · · · · Mr. Lewry, maybe you can put a finer point on
`
`14· ·this for us.
`
`15· · · · · · If you haven't referenced Exhibits 2052 or 2053
`
`16· ·in your opposition to the motion to exclude, how would
`
`17· ·you intend on using these exhibits if we let you file
`
`18· ·them?
`
`19· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Well, as I say, the concern we have
`
`20· ·is that the Petitioners are arguing that, in fact, we did
`
`21· ·preserve their objections, and to the extent that that
`
`22· ·is -- I guess the extent that that's accepted, then these
`
`23· ·particular exhibits are responsive to that -- to that
`
`24· ·position by them.
`
`25· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Yeah.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · But wouldn't you have needed to explain in your
`
`·2· ·opposition as to why these exhibits cure the objection?
`
`·3· · · · · · I understand you're arguing first that they
`
`·4· ·didn't preserve their objection.· I understand that.
`
`·5· · · · · · But then you're making an alternative argument
`
`·6· ·that even if they did preserve it, these exhibits cure
`
`·7· ·it, but wouldn't you explain in your opposition how they
`
`·8· ·cure it so that we know?
`
`·9· · · · · · You can't just file exhibits, and we're supposed
`
`10· ·to figure it out.
`
`11· · · · · · And did you do that in your opposition?
`
`12· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· We -- well, obviously we didn't
`
`13· ·reference these documents.
`
`14· · · · · · We do have explanation as to -- we do take the
`
`15· ·alternative position on the argument that -- without
`
`16· ·specific reference to these exhibits.
`
`17· · · · · · So I guess the answer to your question is it
`
`18· ·would be difficult for us to -- to rely on these
`
`19· ·documents in -- as part of the motion to exclude.
`
`20· · · · · · The only way that there would be reliance is if
`
`21· ·in some other papers that were filed they -- they were
`
`22· ·referenced and came up in those papers, I guess.
`
`23· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Yeah.
`
`24· · · · · · So I guess the follow-up question I have for you
`
`25· ·is:· Doesn't it just make sense for you to withdraw your
`
`

`

`·1· ·request to file these exhibits now, and if for some
`
`·2· ·reason you feel you want to use them later, you can try
`
`·3· ·again with some other document?
`
`·4· · · · · · I don't know exactly if there's any possible way
`
`·5· ·for you to get in new exhibits at this point, but if you
`
`·6· ·haven't actually cited them in your opposition to the
`
`·7· ·motion to exclude, what good does it do to file them?
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Yeah.
`
`·9· · · · · · That probably makes the most sense.· Now that,
`
`10· ·you know, the procedure is better understood, I think
`
`11· ·that does make sense.
`
`12· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`13· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· So we will withdraw that request.
`
`14· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`15· · · · · · All right.· So it sounds like there's no dispute
`
`16· ·that Patent Owner can file Exhibit 2054.
`
`17· · · · · · Is that right, Ms. Gordnia?
`
`18· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· That's right.
`
`19· · · · · · 2054 is the Johnson declaration that is
`
`20· ·expressly cited in Chrimar's opposition to our motion to
`
`21· ·exclude.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· Great.
`
`23· · · · · · And it sounds like, Mr. Lewry, you're going to
`
`24· ·withdraw your request to file Exhibits 2052 and 2053;
`
`25· ·correct?
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· That's correct, yes.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`·3· · · · · · All right.· So it sounds like we resolved that
`
`·4· ·issue.
`
`·5· · · · · · There was a second issue with -- regarding
`
`·6· ·Petitioners' Exhibit 1048.
`
`·7· · · · · · What's the issue there?
`
`·8· · · · · · Let's start with Ms. Gordnia.
`
`·9· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Your Honor, actually I have a
`
`10· ·question for Mr. Lewry, whether he is willing to -- or
`
`11· ·based on what just happened, to withdraw his request for
`
`12· ·expungement.
`
`13· · · · · · That was just an issue that they raised in
`
`14· ·response to our objections to 2052, 2053, and they
`
`15· ·haven't explained the basis for why they're seeking to
`
`16· ·expunge that exhibit.
`
`17· · · · · · That exhibit is supplemental evidence served --
`
`18· ·timely served in response to the objections that Chrimar
`
`19· ·served, and we reference it expressly in our opposition
`
`20· ·to Chrimar's motion to exclude, so in that respect, it's
`
`21· ·very much like 2054 over which there is no dispute.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· Mr. Lewry, is there
`
`23· ·still an issue here?
`
`24· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Yes, there is.
`
`25· · · · · · So it's -- it's maybe a fine point, and maybe
`
`

`

`·1· ·this is just something I need to understand better, but
`
`·2· ·they did -- Petitioners did reference Exhibit 1048 in
`
`·3· ·their opposition to our motion to exclude.
`
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· It's -- the -- the bulk of -- of
`
`·6· ·what is in that --
`
`·7· · · · · · Well, it's a declaration and a number of
`
`·8· ·attached exhibits to the declaration.
`
`·9· · · · · · The bulk of that is not discussed or referenced
`
`10· ·in the -- the -- in the op- -- opposition to the motion,
`
`11· ·and so if it's the case that -- and this is what I think
`
`12· ·I understand now, if it's the case that the only thing
`
`13· ·they can rely on in 1048 is what they expressly
`
`14· ·identified that they're -- and discussed in their
`
`15· ·opposition, then I guess we're fine with that, that
`
`16· ·they're limited to that, and so the bulk of it is just
`
`17· ·irrelevant.
`
`18· · · · · · And so if that's the case, then -- then we would
`
`19· ·withdraw that request and just rely on the fact that
`
`20· ·they've only cited to limited portions of it, and then
`
`21· ·they can't rely on any other portions of it.
`
`22· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Yeah.
`
`23· · · · · · I think, Mr. Lewry, your understanding is
`
`24· ·generally correct, that, you know, we're not going to go
`
`25· ·searching through an exhibit.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · Basically we rely on the parties to point us to
`
`·2· ·where the specific evidence is in the record that would
`
`·3· ·address the objection.
`
`·4· · · · · · So if they point to specific portions on
`
`·5· ·Exhibit 1048, we're generally going to look at those
`
`·6· ·specific portions, particularly if it's a very large
`
`·7· ·exhibit.
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Okay.· Understood.
`
`·9· · · · · · So with that understanding, we will withdraw our
`
`10· ·request with respect to 1048 as well.
`
`11· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· And Mr. Lewry, I just
`
`12· ·want to go back to your Exhibits 2052 to 2054 to clarify
`
`13· ·something.
`
`14· · · · · · You know, we don't have any specific problem
`
`15· ·with the way you approached this in that you filed a
`
`16· ·separate paper requesting authorization to file
`
`17· ·Exhibits 2052 to 2054.
`
`18· · · · · · Although you could have filed them without that
`
`19· ·request, the fact that you did it is fine, it's the fact
`
`20· ·that you didn't actually reference 2052 and 2053 in your
`
`21· ·opposition to the motion to exclude that's the problem.
`
`22· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Understood.
`
`23· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· I just wanted to make
`
`24· ·sure that, you know, proced- -- you know, it's more than
`
`25· ·a procedural issue.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · It's more that you substantively didn't address
`
`·2· ·those exhibits.
`
`·3· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· I understand.
`
`·4· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.· I'm going to place you
`
`·6· ·all on a brief hold to confer with my panel members, and
`
`·7· ·I'll be back in a moment.
`
`·8· · · · · · (Pause in proceedings.)
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· All right.· This is
`
`10· ·Judge Weinschenk again.
`
`11· · · · · · I just wanted to clarify one point that with
`
`12· ·respect to Petitioners' Exhibit 1048, and with respect to
`
`13· ·Patent Owner's Exhibit 2054, which Patent Owner is going
`
`14· ·to file, we will consider those exhibits, you know, for
`
`15· ·whatever the parties have cited them for, but I did say
`
`16· ·that we will only consider the portions that you've
`
`17· ·cited.· The exhibits are in the record in their entirety,
`
`18· ·and we will consider them for the portions that have been
`
`19· ·cited by the parties.
`
`20· · · · · · I just wanted to clarify that point, that that's
`
`21· ·how we will consider them for both of the parties.
`
`22· · · · · · With that said, are there any questions from
`
`23· ·Petitioner?
`
`24· · · · · · Ms. Gordnia?
`
`25· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· No, Your Honor.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · Thank you.
`
`·2· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Are there any questions from
`
`·3· ·Patent Owner?
`
`·4· · · · · · Mr. Lewry?
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· No, Your Honor.
`
`·6· · · · · · Thanks.
`
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE WEINSCHENK:· Okay.
`
`·8· · · · · · All right.· With that said, we appreciate the
`
`·9· ·parties' time.
`
`10· · · · · · And this call is adjourned.
`
`11· · · · · · MR. LEWRY:· Thank you.
`
`12· · · · · · MS. GORDNIA:· Thank you.
`
`13· · · · · · Bye.
`
`14· · · · · · (Proceedings adjourned at 9:26 A.M.)
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1· ·STATE OF CALIFORNIA· · · ·)
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) ss.
`
`·3· ·COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES· · ·)
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · I, TERI J. NELSON, CSR NO. 7682, RPR, in and for
`
`·6· ·the State of California, do hereby certify:
`
`·7· · · · · · That said proceedings were recorded
`
`·8· ·stenographically by me at the time and place therein
`
`·9· ·named, and thereafter transcribed, and the same is a
`
`10· ·true, correct and complete transcript of said
`
`11· ·proceedings.
`
`12· · · · · · I further certify that I am not interested in
`
`13· ·the event of the action.
`
`14· · · · · · WITNESS MY HAND this 23rd day of August, 2017.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · TERI J. NELSON
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CSR No. 7682, RPR
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`
`iRANSCR__J:’i Ob'
`
`
`itlelt’HON
`
`
`
`C HfiAR NG — 08/16/2017
`
`
`il
`
`7:17
`
`AUGUST
`4:1
`
`authorization
`17:16
`
`back
`17:1218:7
`
`background
`7:23
`
`based
`15:11
`
`Basically
`17:1
`
`basis
`15:15
`
`begs
`9:17
`
`believe
`4:13 6:3
`
`belt
`9:11 12:1
`
`better
`14:10 16:1
`
`Board
`6:14
`
`brief
`6:18 18:6
`
`briefing
`11:8
`
`bnefings
`9:3
`
`Brooks
`5:5
`
`bulk
`16:5,9,16
`
`Bye
`19:13
`
`call
`4:8 6:4 7:22 8:811:24
`19:10
`
`can't
`13:9 16:21
`
`case
`
`16:11,12,18
`
`cause
`8:24
`
`Chrimar
`10:815:18
`
`Chrimar's
`10:911:314:2015:20
`
`Chfis
`4:14
`
`cite
`9:5
`
`cited
`9:6 14:6,20 16:20
`18:15,17,19
`
`claim
`8:4
`
`clarify
`5:1717:1218:11,20
`
`clearly
`1 1 :24
`
`co-extensive
`8:5,10
`
`concept
`9:12
`
`concern
`12:19
`
`confer
`18:6
`
`conference
`4:8
`
`consider
`10:21,2418:14,16,18,
`21
`
`contact
`6:13
`
`contend
`9:13
`
`contending
`8:9
`
`confinue
`
`
`
`1048
`15:616:2,1317:5,10
`18:12
`
`16
`4:1
`
`2017
`4:1
`
`2038
`8:19
`
`2052
`7:5 8:12 9:610:3,13
`12:1514:2415:14
`
`17:12,17,20
`
`2053
`7:5 8:12 9:610:3,13
`12:1514:2415:14
`17:20
`
`2054
`7:6 8:13 9:510:10,13
`14:16,1915:21 17:12,
`1718:13
`
`A.M.
`4:2 19:14
`
`accepted
`1 2 :22
`
`address
`8:8 17:3 18:1
`
`adjourned
`19:10,14
`
`afternoon
`4:4
`
`alleged
`9:19
`
`alternative
`13:5,15
`
`Anderson
`4:7
`
`answer
`1 3:1 7
`
`answering
`7:18
`
`appeal
`1 1 :20
`
`appreciate
`19:8
`
`approached
`17:15
`
`aren't
`12:3
`
`argued
`10:24
`
`arguing
`7:21 ,23 12:20 13:3
`
`argument
`9:21 11:1913:5,15
`
`assume
`5:7
`
`attach
`12:4
`
`attached
`16:8
`
`attempt
`11 :15
`
`
`DT: Court Reporting Solutions — Woodland Hills
`1—800—826—0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`iRANSCR__J:’i Ob'
`
`
`i11T.1'.J:’HON
`
` C HfiAR NG —
`
`
`08/16/2017
`
`i2
`
`contrast
`10:10
`
`copy
`4:24
`
`explanation
`13:14
`
`expressly
`14:2015:1916:13
`
`expunge
`15:16
`
`expungement
`15:12
`
`extent
`
`G
`
`generalized
`8:20
`
`generally
`5:1916:2417:5
`
`correct
`
`7:12,13,1614:2515:1
`16:24
`
`course
`7:25
`
`court
`
`4:15,21
`
`cure
`
`9:1913:2,6,8
`
`D
`
`declaration
`8:19,22 11 :2,3,5,6
`14:19 16:7,8
`
`detail
`8:15
`
`didn't
`9:5,7,910:1213:4,12
`17:20 18:1
`
`differences
`5:14
`
`different
`5:15
`
`difficult
`13:18
`
`discussed
`11:5 16:9,14
`
`dispute
`5:12 7:2,4,6,14 8:13,14
`14:15 15:21
`
`document
`14:3
`
`documents
`11:213:13,19
`
`doesn't
`9:22 13:25
`
`doing
`4:16 5:8
`
`don1
`6:4 8:24 9:1610:20,21,
`2411:21 12:1,6,814:4
`
`E-mails
`5:11
`
`Easthom
`4:6
`
`echo
`10:6
`
`entirety
`18:17
`
`essentially
`6:23 7:1911:3,5
`
`evidence
`5:13,20,22 6:1,10,17
`8:1,2,11,1210:1415:17
`17:2
`
`exactly
`11:18 14:4
`
`exceeded
`7:24
`
`exclude
`5:25 6:2,11,19,22 7:19,
`23 8:4,5,9 9:1,5,14
`10:1011:1212:16
`
`13:1914:7,21 15:20
`16:3 17:21
`
`exhibit
`7:6 8:19 9:5,7,2210:1O
`11:414:1615:6,16,17
`16:2,2517:5,718:12,13
`
`exhibits
`6:25 7:5,11 8:12 9:3,6,
`1910:3,7,13,1912:3,
`15,17,23 13:2,6,9,16
`14:1,5,2416:817:12,17
`18:2,14,17
`
`expert
`8:19 11:4,6
`
`explain
`8:15 13:1,7
`
`explained
`6:9,20 9:1815:15
`
`hold
`
`8:4,8 9:1212:21,22
`
`give
`5:16 7:22
`
`F
`
`go
`11:2416:2417:12
`
`fact
`12:2016:1917:19
`
`goes
`11:4
`
`feel
`14:2
`
`figure
`13:10
`
`file
`5:13,19,21 6:15 7:1
`8:119:10,1510:18,19,
`2212:1713:914:1,7,
`16,2417:1618:14
`
`filed
`4:25 5:23 6:11,12,17,22
`12:313:21 17:15,18
`
`filing
`5:24 9:2210:2
`
`fine
`15:2516:1517:19
`
`finer
`12:13
`
`first
`7:20 13:3
`
`five
`8:21
`
`Fleming
`4:12
`
`follow-up
`13:24
`
`forced
`8:2
`
`four
`8:17
`
`going
`5:16 8:2311:14,23
`14:2316:2417:518:5,
`13
`
`good
`4:4 9:22 14:7
`
`Gordnia
`4:11,18,20,24 5:1 10:4,
`5,2511:1,1812:12
`14:17,1815:8,918:24,
`2519:12
`
`Great
`5:2 14:22
`
`guess
`9:11,1710:1612:22
`13:17,22,2416:15
`
`H
`
`happened
`10:1 15:11
`
`havent
`9:2,21 10:2312:1514:6
`15:15
`
`hear
`10:1
`
`heafing
`7:21
`
`help
`5:17
`
`
`DT: Court Reporting Solutions — Woodland Hills
`1—800—826—0277
`www.deposition.com
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`iRANSCR__J:’i Ob'
`
`
`ifiTmZBHON
`
`
`
`C HfiAR NG — 08/16/2017
`
`i3
`
`5:16
`
`never
`9:18
`
`new
`14:5
`
`number
`8:18,20 16:7
`
`0
`
`objected
`8:18
`
`objecting
`8:22
`
`objection
`5:20,21,23,24 9:19
`10:2,1213:2,417:3
`
`objections
`5:22 7:12,24 8:3,6,10,
`16,25 9:1412:21 15:14,
`18
`
`obviously
`11 :22 13:12
`
`Okay
`4:16 5:2,7,10 7:14,17
`9:2412:11 14:12,14,22
`15:2,2216:417:8,11,23
`18:519:7
`
`op-
`16:10
`
`opportunity
`11 :9 12:6
`
`opposing
`6:2
`
`opposition
`6:18 9:4,810:911:11
`12:4,1613:2,7,11 14:6,
`2015:1916:3,10,15
`17:21
`
`oppress
`5:22
`
`oral
`11 :19
`
`outnumbered
`5:6
`
`overview
`
`making
`13:5
`
`Manella
`4:12,19
`
`Matt
`4:13
`
`matter
`12:2
`
`mean
`9:21 10:19
`
`members
`18:6
`
`merits
`8:25 9:2
`
`Mike
`4:12
`
`misunderstanding
`6:23
`
`mo-
`8:16
`
`moment
`18:7
`
`Morris
`4:14
`
`motion
`5:24 6:2,11,14,19,22
`7:19,22,23 8:4,5,9 9:1,
`4,1410:911:1212:16
`13:1914:7,2015:20
`16:3,1017:21
`
`necessarily
`8:24
`
`need
`8:24 9:916:1
`
`needed
`13:1
`
`18:6
`
`Honor
`4:11 5:1,410:4,6,25
`15:918:2519:5
`
`I'||
`5:1810:618:7
`
`I'm
`
`5:6,15 8:2318:5
`
`identified
`7:4,6 8:21 10:11 16:14
`
`identify
`4:22
`
`improper
`10:15
`
`initially
`6:4
`
`intend
`12:17
`
`IPR
`8:18
`
`lPR2016-O1389
`4:8 8:17
`
`IPRS
`8:17
`
`lrell
`4:12,19
`
`irrelevant
`16:17
`
`issue
`615,8 15:4,5,7,13,23
`17:25
`
`issues
`7:19 8:210:611:11
`
`it's
`5:6 8:7 9:11 11:5,10,12
`15:20,2516:5,7,11,12
`17:6,19,2418:1
`
`Johnson
`14:19
`
`Judge
`4:4,5,6,7,16,20 5:2,7,10
`7:8,10,14,17 8:23 9:17,
`2410:1611:1412:11,
`2513:2314:12,14,22
`15:2,2216:4,2217:11,
`2318:5,9,1019:2,7
`
`K
`
`know
`9:2011:21 12:1,6,8
`13:814:4,1016:24
`17:14,2418:14
`
`Kushman
`5:5
`
`large
`17:6
`
`late
`11 :7
`
`learned
`6:16
`
`Let's
`15:8
`
`letting
`10:18
`
`Lewry
`5:4,9 6:5,6,7 7:9,13,16,
`18 8:23 9:11,2312:13,
`1913:1214:8,13,23
`15:1 ,10,22,24 16:5,23
`17:8,11,2218:319:4,5,
`11
`
`limited
`16:16,20
`
`line
`4:6,10,13,15,22 5:3
`
`list
`9:7
`
`listed
`9:7
`
`look
`9:3 17:5
`
`looked
`9:2
`
`
`DT: Court Reporting Solutions — Woodland Hills
`1—800—826—0277
`www.deposition.
`
`COIH
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`iRANSCR__J:’i Ob'
`
`
`i11T.1'.J:’HON
`
` C HfiAR NG —
`
`
`08/16/2017
`
`i4
`
`Owner
`5:3 6:310:9,2214:16
`18:13 19:3
`
`18:12
`
`place
`18:5
`
`619,20 12:3,4
`
`properly
`5:13
`
`rely
`9:8,911:1513:18
`16:13,19,21 17:1
`
`Owner's
`6:25 18:13
`
`panel
`18:6
`
`panelists
`5:15
`
`plan
`11:21 12:7,8
`
`purpose
`10:15
`
`p
`
`point
`7:25 8:712:1314:5
`
`put
`12:13
`
`15:2517:1,418:11,20
`
`portions
`16:20,21 17:4,618:16,
`18
`
`served
`
`reporter
`4:15,21
`
`request
`6:1414:1,13,2415:11
`16:1917:10,19
`
`requested
`6:4
`
`requesting
`17:16
`
`resolved
`15:3
`
`respect
`15:2017:1018:12
`
`respond
`11 :9 12:6
`
`response
`5:20 6:12 7:11 15:14,18
`
`responsive
`11 :10 12:23
`
`right
`5:11 9:22,2514:15,17,
`1815:318:919:8
`
`S
`
`scope
`7:24
`
`searching
`16:25
`
`second
`7:9,25 8:24 15:5
`
`see
`
`9:4,5
`
`seeking
`15:15
`
`sense
`
`13:2514:9,11
`
`separate
`17:16
`
`serve
`5:21 10:15
`
`question
`6:8 9:1,1810:1611:2
`13:17,2415:10
`
`questions
`18:22 19:2
`
`quick
`5:16
`
`raised
`7:19 8:310:711:11
`15:13
`
`real
`10:23
`
`realize
`5:14
`
`reason
`
`9:1610:11 11:22,25
`14:2
`
`record
`11:7,2317:218:17
`
`reference
`10:2013:13,1615:19
`16:2 17:20
`
`referenced
`10:8,1312:5,1513:22
`16:9
`
`referring
`12:2
`
`regarding
`15:5
`
`reliance
`13:20
`
`relied
`10:8
`
`paper
`8:16,1810:1412:5
`17:16
`
`papers
`10:2013:21,22
`
`paragraphs
`8:21
`
`part
`6:811:1513:19
`
`particular
`12:23
`
`particularly
`17:6
`
`parties
`4:22 5:12,1817:1
`18:15,19,21
`
`parties'
`5:17 19:9
`
`party
`5:19,21,23,25
`
`Patent
`5:3 6:3,25 10:8,22
`14:1618:1319:3
`
`pause
`18:8
`
`people
`10:19
`
`Petitioner
`4:10,17 6:1710:1 18:23
`
`Petitioners
`4:12,14 8:4,9,18 9:12
`10:512:9,2o 16:2
`
`Petitioners'
`7:18 8:16 9:410:915:6
`
`position
`12:24 13:15
`
`positions
`5:17
`
`possible
`14:4
`
`prejudice
`1o:17,2312:9
`
`prejudiced
`11 :7
`
`prejudicial
`11 :13
`
`preserve
`12:21 13:4,6
`
`preserved
`5:24 9:13
`
`previously
`52325 7:11
`
`probably
`14:9
`
`problem
`17:14,21
`
`proced-
`17:24
`
`procedural
`17:25
`
`procedure
`6:10,21 14:10
`
`proceedings
`18:8 19:14
`
`pr