throbber
Page 1
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: This is Judge Georgianna
`
`Braden. The reason why we've asked for this
`
`phone call with the parties is because, as I'm
`
`sure you're aware, the Federal Circuit recently
`
`issued an en banc decision in Aqua Products,
`
`Inc. versus Matal. I believe that occurred on
`
`October 4, 2017.
`
` So we are contacting the parties now
`
`because Patent Owner has filed a motion to
`
`amend -- contingent motion to amend in both
`
`proceedings. We are approximately six weeks
`
`away from oral arguments that are scheduled for
`
`November 30th, if the parties request them, and
`
`I would like to hear from both parties, starting
`
`with Patent Owner first, if you believe that
`
`Aqua Products has any impact on your motion to
`
`amend and if you believe any additional briefing
`
`is warranted in these proceedings.
`
` Patent Owner, we'll hear from you first
`
`on behalf of Realtime.
`
` MR. NOROOZI: Your Honor, I will begin.
`
`This is Kayvan Noroozi, and I'll also let my
`
`partner, William Rothwell, continue after I've
`
`made a few initial remarks, because this subject
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 1 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`has sort of been raised with the Board a few
`
`times before in various forms, both before Aqua
`
`Products came down and since, and so I think
`
`it's one that has largely been covered.
`
` Before the Aqua Products decision was
`
`issued, Patent Owner noted in its motion to
`
`amend that the Federal Circuit would be deciding
`
`Aqua Products en banc and that the decision
`
`10
`
`could shift the burden from Patent Owner to
`
`11
`
`Apple, and we preserve the right to have the
`
`12
`
`revised standard apply to our motion to amend
`
`13
`
`if, in fact, such a revised standard was handed
`
`14
`
`down by the Federal Circuit.
`
`15
`
` Apple sought additional briefing space
`
`16
`
`for its response before Aqua Products come down
`
`17
`
`on the basis that if Aqua Products were issued,
`
`18
`
`it would bear the burden -- sorry, that if Aqua
`
`19
`
`Products were issued in a manner that would
`
`20
`
`place the burden on Apple, Apple would now have
`
`21
`
`to say more and present more to the Board than
`
`22
`
`it otherwise would have in light of its new
`
`23
`
`burden. My partner William Rothwell can speak
`
`24
`
`more to the conversation because I was not
`
`25
`
`personally on the call.
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 2 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
` But my understanding is that we
`
`explained that -- we had 25 pages of briefing in
`
`our affirmative motion when the burden was on
`
`us, and Apple had 25 pages to respond when the
`
`burden was not on them, and so there was no
`
`reason to give additional briefing or space for
`
`them to say more than we were able to say
`
`regardless of any shifts in burden. In fact,
`
`10
`
`the Board denied additional pages on that basis,
`
`11
`
`is my understanding, and went on to sort of
`
`12
`
`defer the issue of what would happen if Aqua
`
`13
`
`Products changed the law.
`
`14
`
` Apple proceeded with the understanding
`
`15
`
`that Aqua Products could come out the way that
`
`16
`
`it did, and so they submitted very lengthy
`
`17
`
`declarations, I believe over a hundred pages
`
`18
`
`each, from their expert attempting to put down
`
`19
`
`what they thought they needed to put down in
`
`20
`
`light of the possibility that they would bear
`
`21
`
`the burden under a shift in law in Aqua
`
`22
`
`Products.
`
`23
`
` We took the deposition of Apple's
`
`24
`
`expert. We addressed their arguments. We
`
`25
`
`addressed the lengthy discussions and the
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 3 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`hundred-page-plus declarations and the reply
`
`briefs that we submitted just this Wednesday,
`
`and in our reply brief we addressed the import
`
`of Aqua Products to this proceeding, and we did
`
`all that within the 12-page limit of our reply.
`
` We also agreed with Apple, in order to
`
`get an extension, that Apple should be allowed
`
`to submit a further brief, not to exceed
`
`10
`
`12 pages, to specifically and only discuss the
`
`11
`
`importance of Aqua Products onto these motions
`
`12
`
`to amend, but that Apple should not be
`
`13
`
`permitted -- of course this is a point that
`
`14
`
`Realtime made -- that Apple should not be
`
`15
`
`permitted to provide new evidence or submit new
`
`16
`
`expert testimony or make new arguments or
`
`17
`
`submit new prior art.
`
`18
`
` The record on those issues is now
`
`19
`
`closed. Apple had a full opportunity to do all
`
`20
`
`that in its response knowing that Aqua Products
`
`21
`
`could come out the way that it did. And there's
`
`22
`
`no reason to prejudice Realtime by sort of
`
`23
`
`opening the record back up for Apple.
`
`24
`
` So in short --
`
`25
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Counsel, I want to make
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 4 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`sure that I understand, that Patent Owner would
`
`agree to allow Petitioner 12 additional pages to
`
`respond --
`
` MR. NOROOZI: To specifically --
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Yeah, go ahead.
`
` MR. NOROOZI: To specifically and only
`
`discuss the Federal Circuit's decision in Aqua
`
`Products and what impact it may have as a matter
`
`10
`
`of law to the motions to amend, but not to
`
`11
`
`introduce new arguments or evidence or facts or
`
`12
`
`go back over the prior art and so forth.
`
`13
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. Thank you.
`
`14
`
`And did your colleague, Mr. Rothwell, have
`
`15
`
`something additional to add?
`
`16
`
` MR. ROTHWELL: No, that covers what I
`
`17
`
`would have said.
`
`18
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. Then we'll
`
`19
`
`hear from Petitioner.
`
`20
`
` MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`21
`
`We'll start out by just noting that opposing
`
`22
`
`counsel is correct that Apple and opposing
`
`23
`
`counsel did discuss earlier the potential of
`
`24
`
`Aqua Products, and it was in light of the page
`
`25
`
`extension request that was earlier solicited.
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 5 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`Your Honors did decline to extend those pages.
`
` But our request was premised on not one
`
`thing. It was not just the ideas that could
`
`potentially be an Aqua Products decision that
`
`could change the burden. The request was
`
`actually borne of the nature of the prior art
`
`that was being applied, and it was a
`
`combination -- a complex combination was set
`
`10
`
`forth -- to be set forth against the amended
`
`11
`
`claims.
`
`12
`
` And while the Patent Owner was able to
`
`13
`
`satisfy what they believed to be their
`
`14
`
`submission requirements at the time, they were
`
`15
`
`directed to the amendments in order to set forth
`
`16
`
`an entirely new combination of references and to
`
`17
`
`do so in a way that was adequate. To even
`
`18
`
`expect that combination and apply it was what we
`
`19
`
`were asking for pages for. In the event Aqua
`
`20
`
`Products might come down and change the burden
`
`21
`
`was an amplification of the problem that we
`
`22
`
`foresaw with the currently then imposed --
`
`23
`
`then-current-page limits that were in place.
`
`24
`
` So we think that our request was clear
`
`25
`
`on that point. And, Your Honors, when we talked
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 6 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`about that earlier in our last call, we'll
`
`recollect that we even had a discussion during
`
`that call, at the conclusion of that call that
`
`the page limits were not being moved, but to the
`
`extent that Aqua Products were to come down with
`
`a decision that shifted the burden away from
`
`Patent Owner, that there would be an opportunity
`
`to revisit what kind of submission would be
`
`10
`
`appropriate. And it was not contemplated at
`
`11
`
`that time that the submission would be limited
`
`12
`
`to the legal argument about whether Aqua
`
`13
`
`Products had an impact and what kind of impact
`
`14
`
`it would have, but instead we were talking about
`
`15
`
`the submission of argument as it related to the
`
`16
`
`prior art against claims as amended and
`
`17
`
`evidence. We talked about that as well. So,
`
`18
`
`Your Honors, when we left that call as a parting
`
`19
`
`audience, we had understood that we would be
`
`20
`
`revisiting that issue to the extent there was a
`
`21
`
`change in the burdens.
`
`22
`
` Your Honor, I would like to note, at the
`
`23
`
`outset you've asked for where we are in terms
`
`24
`
`of: Do we think that Aqua Products has an
`
`25
`
`impact? And what do we think would be
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 7 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`appropriate as briefing? I'd like to address
`
`those two points.
`
` As to whether it has an impact, we think
`
`the impact is rather monumental. To the extent
`
`there is a shift in burden that goes over to
`
`Petitioner for Aqua Products -- and there's over
`
`150 pages of opinion, as you know, in that
`
`decision -- but to the extent that's what is
`
`10
`
`meant by Aqua Products, we would note that all
`
`11
`
`of the prior submissions as it relates to the
`
`12
`
`motions to amend in this case, the opposition
`
`13
`
`that we put in and their rebuttal to it those
`
`14
`
`were --
`
`15
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, your words
`
`16
`
`were cut off.
`
`17
`
` Mr. Renner: Where I was heading was
`
`18
`
`that Aqua Products has an impact as we think
`
`19
`
`quite evident that the party who would own the
`
`20
`
`burden is now for the first time aware of the
`
`21
`
`fact that it owns the burden. And when we put
`
`22
`
`our prior submissions in, those were all
`
`23
`
`designed, those were all written with an eye
`
`24
`
`toward a party that did not then own the burden.
`
`25
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: I apologize for
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 8 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`interrupting you. I want to make sure that
`
`I'm -- let's go ahead and jump to this. If
`
`you're asking for additional briefing and you
`
`clearly don't want it limited to just legal
`
`arguments regarding Aqua Products, as Patent
`
`Owner would agree to, would you be requesting
`
`the addition of more evidence, or would you be
`
`able to make your case using evidence that is
`
`10
`
`currently of record?
`
`11
`
` MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`12
`
`Your Honor, it's the former. We believe that
`
`13
`
`our earlier submission -- well, we don't
`
`14
`
`believe. Our earlier submission was made both
`
`15
`
`in argument and in evidence as a party that did
`
`16
`
`not own the burden of persuasion, Your Honor.
`
`17
`
`And so we would absolutely want to have the
`
`18
`
`opportunity to furnish evidence that would be
`
`19
`
`consistent with ownership of that burden. We
`
`20
`
`have ideas on how that might be accomplished,
`
`21
`
`but I want to make sure I'm answering your
`
`22
`
`question.
`
`23
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Please tell me. In what
`
`24
`
`way would Petitioner propose? Would this
`
`25
`
`include new declarations, new depositions?
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 9 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
` MR. RENNER: Yes. Yes, Your Honor, and
`
`we were trying to think about how this could be
`
`accomplished in an efficient way, and so there
`
`were two ideas that we had, one of which we just
`
`don't think is very efficient, but I'll mention
`
`both just for the sake of giving you our
`
`thoughts fully on the item.
`
` Right now there is already an opposition
`
`10
`
`that was filed, and there is a response, as you
`
`11
`
`noted to that opposition on the record. Those
`
`12
`
`papers exist. As I was starting to go into,
`
`13
`
`they're written to the wrong standard, and so
`
`14
`
`they're not really probative of the issues that
`
`15
`
`come to a party that is owning that burden. So
`
`16
`
`we think they have limited value. We actually
`
`17
`
`think they might complicate.
`
`18
`
` But one process that could be put in
`
`19
`
`place might be that we furnish additional
`
`20
`
`briefing, and that would include argument and
`
`21
`
`evidence. So as to make sure that the Patent
`
`22
`
`Owner isn't prejudiced, our intent here is not
`
`23
`
`to prejudice the Patent Owner. They would have
`
`24
`
`an opportunity to respond in briefly and I
`
`25
`
`presume evidence in much the same way that they
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 10 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`do in a normal petition process. And then we
`
`would as the party owning the burden go last
`
`with a submission of a rebuttal. That's pretty
`
`complex when laid over top of the existing
`
`briefing. That ends up five papers. I'm going
`
`to gather that you're not exited about five
`
`papers on this issue.
`
` So the alternative that we had come to
`
`10
`
`was warrant to some extent of that, but we
`
`11
`
`actually that think those papers being
`
`12
`
`misdirected, we would recommend expunging them
`
`13
`
`and acting in a way that is consistent with a
`
`14
`
`party owning the burden going first and last,
`
`15
`
`and we would put in what would be a renewed
`
`16
`
`opposition, one that is written and supportive
`
`17
`
`of evidence that is consistent with us having
`
`18
`
`the burden. The patient owner would follow and
`
`19
`
`we would have the final paper on the item. And
`
`20
`
`we think this is entirely consistent with the
`
`21
`
`way a petition process runs.
`
`22
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Would you be to get this
`
`23
`
`done along with the other items that are
`
`24
`
`required under the scheduling order by
`
`25
`
`November 30th?
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 11 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, the issue we
`
`think that the proceeding would have with that
`
`is, if there's evidence going in there's going
`
`to be a need almost certainly for -- someone is
`
`going to want to depose other people's experts.
`
`So I would expect the answer unfortunately is
`
`no.
`
` That said, I think that the rules
`
`10
`
`contemplate schedules that can extend certainly
`
`11
`
`beyond that date and even, if necessary,
`
`12
`
`extending beyond the one year under, of course,
`
`13
`
`exceptional circumstances. We actually would
`
`14
`
`think this is such a circumstance. I don't know
`
`15
`
`if that's a briefing schedule that would be
`
`16
`
`necessitated. We haven't talked to opposing
`
`17
`
`counsel. We would be happy to work with them on
`
`18
`
`what could be a briefing schedule. But I think
`
`19
`
`that schedule is probably an undoable one under
`
`20
`
`almost any circumstance we can imagine,
`
`21
`
`unfortunately. We're not happy about that. I
`
`22
`
`gather you probably aren't as well.
`
`23
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Thank you Petitioner. I
`
`24
`
`want to hear very briefly from Patent Owner.
`
`25
`
` What I want you to address, Patent
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 12 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`Owner, is -- because I'm going to order
`
`additional briefing. So give me your thoughts
`
`about that additional briefing.
`
` MR. NOROOZI: Yes, Your Honor. I have
`
`two very important points that I would really
`
`request that the board consider in how it
`
`proceeds from here.
`
` First of all, there will absolutely be
`
`10
`
`prejudice to Patent Owner if Petitioner is
`
`11
`
`allowed to submit new evidence and argument even
`
`12
`
`as to the existing prior art, that that will
`
`13
`
`happen in terms of the timing because there will
`
`14
`
`be timing constraints but more importantly the
`
`15
`
`prejudice will occur to Patent Owner because
`
`16
`
`Apple has already put forth its arguments. We
`
`17
`
`have had the opportunity to cross-examine its
`
`18
`
`experts and debunk those arguments and
`
`19
`
`demonstrate why they are wrong and why they
`
`20
`
`don't show unpatentability. And now Apple and
`
`21
`
`its experts having seen our positions and our
`
`22
`
`arguments and having sat through our
`
`23
`
`cross-examination want to be able to take an
`
`24
`
`entirely new bite of the Apple. In fact, they
`
`25
`
`are so concerned about the record as it exists
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 13 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`that they have asked you to expunge the existing
`
`arguments and evidence including the
`
`cross-examination testimony of their expert.
`
`And I think that really speaks to the kind of
`
`prejudice that they are trying to work here. I
`
`find it very problematic and troubling.
`
` Now, the reality is, Your Honor, very
`
`quickly, that Apple has known about Aqua
`
`10
`
`Products for the entirety of this proceeding and
`
`11
`
`so they have been able to take it into account
`
`12
`
`in everything they have done. They stated that
`
`13
`
`their briefing and the way that this played out
`
`14
`
`is now sort of moot because Aqua Products
`
`15
`
`changed the standard. How so? How is that?
`
`16
`
`They don't explain that. And it's not at all
`
`17
`
`correct. The only thing that Aqua Products does
`
`18
`
`is it shifts the burden. We knew that it might
`
`19
`
`do that. And Apple had the same number of pages
`
`20
`
`for briefing for its argument as patent owner
`
`21
`
`did when we bore the burden, and Apple put forth
`
`22
`
`hundreds of pages of declaration testimony and
`
`23
`
`could have done anything it wanted in those
`
`24
`
`declarations. So now that its best argument at
`
`25
`
`that time have been debunk and is working at
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 14 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`losing and getting these claims amended in the
`
`event that the motions to amend are even
`
`relevant, Apple is coming back and trying to use
`
`Aqua as a basis to do an entire do-over and
`
`re-set. That's very prejudicial, Your Honor.
`
` So I would ask that if you grant
`
`additional briefing, that you please grant it in
`
`the way that we've already agreed to, which is a
`
`10
`
`discussion of the legal aspects of Aqua Products
`
`11
`
`and its importance to the motions to amend, but
`
`12
`
`not to include any new evidence or argument as
`
`13
`
`to the prior art even the prior art of record.
`
`14
`
` MR. ROTHWELL: Your Honor, this is
`
`15
`
`William Rothwell, what I was going to say is, I
`
`16
`
`think the closest analog we have in terms of a
`
`17
`
`major decision coming up mid stream -- I think a
`
`18
`
`comparable situation is when the in re ellis
`
`19
`
`situation came out and and that had a similar
`
`20
`
`effect if there were pending proceedings, and
`
`21
`
`that decision affected how those proceedings
`
`22
`
`should be resolved.
`
`23
`
` And as far as I'm aware, the way the
`
`24
`
`Board handled that in that situation was to
`
`25
`
`allow each side or in some cases only one side
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 15 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`four or five extra pages to address the legal
`
`issues and the ramifications of in re allis,
`
`which is what we're proposing here. I'm not
`
`aware of any situations in response to in re
`
`allis where there was sort of the entire do-over
`
`as being proposed here by Petitioner.
`
` MR. NOROOZI: And more broadly, to the
`
`extent that the Board has ever in any situation
`
`10
`
`once given substantive briefing on evidence and
`
`11
`
`argument after in re Alice, we don't think that
`
`12
`
`that sort of a scenario is warranted here in
`
`13
`
`light of Aqua Products, specifically because
`
`14
`
`Apple knew that Aqua Products would come down
`
`15
`
`and that it could come down the way it did.
`
`16
`
`They had every opportunity to put in every
`
`17
`
`argument and every piece of evidence that they
`
`18
`
`wanted to before this decision came down. And
`
`19
`
`so the premise that Aqua Products now triggers
`
`20
`
`some new knowledge and event and information
`
`21
`
`that requires Apple to get a do-over or even an
`
`22
`
`add-on is just incorrect.
`
`23
`
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, if I may, I'd
`
`24
`
`like to have an opportunity to respond.
`
`25
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: You may have two minutes.
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 16 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
` MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. I
`
`would think it is simply not appropriate to
`
`suggest there's weakness or otherwise to suggest
`
`anything on the merits as it relates to this as
`
`a consequence. The knowledge of a federal
`
`circuit case impendency does not in any way
`
`suggest that we know how a case will come down,
`
`what its holding will be, nor does it
`
`10
`
`appropriately treat any kind of burden for a
`
`11
`
`party to bring evidence that is not aligned to
`
`12
`
`the currently applicable legal standard to the
`
`13
`
`table and nor would a party. It's expense
`
`14
`
`that's necessary to consequence, and we would be
`
`15
`
`constantly betting on things that are not
`
`16
`
`realities.
`
`17
`
` We're told that the arguments in
`
`18
`
`evidence would have been made -- we thought in
`
`19
`
`our last call that we had together that when we
`
`20
`
`were denied the page count, we were told this
`
`21
`
`would be something revisited, and even evidence
`
`22
`
`was discussed at the time. Clearly there was
`
`23
`
`limits on the number of pages we had and those
`
`24
`
`were stressing already the application of what
`
`25
`
`you now can see is a combination.
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 17 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
` And as to Alice, it's a completely
`
`different legal point. It wouldn't be
`
`appropriate in any way at all for us to
`
`analogize the Alice decision in what's going on,
`
`as it didn't shift the burden among the parties.
`
`So the notion in any way informs this issue, we
`
`would absolutely take issue with.
`
` And I guess the final point in terms of
`
`10
`
`prejudice, and our suggestion was an attempt to
`
`11
`
`make sure there was no prejudice to either
`
`12
`
`party. We're simply trying to have a proceeding
`
`13
`
`go forward in a way that both parties can be
`
`14
`
`heard on their proofs and those proofs be
`
`15
`
`aligned to the burdens that are allocated to
`
`16
`
`those parties.
`
`17
`
` So, Your Honor, I think we're seeking a
`
`18
`
`very fair opportunity for parties to be heard
`
`19
`
`and for Your Honors to have not an undue amount
`
`20
`
`of work nor an undo kind of extension in time
`
`21
`
`appropriate here. Thank you.
`
`22
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. The panel
`
`23
`
`will take a momentary recess. We will confer,
`
`24
`
`and then we will back on the line. So we ask
`
`25
`
`that both the parties and the court reporter
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 18 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`please stay on the line. Thank you.
`
` - - -
`
` (Whereupon, a recess was held.)
`
` - - -
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Case IPR2016-01738.
`
`Again, this is Judge Georgianna Braden, and
`
`along with me are Judges Chung and Stephens.
`
` Let me know, do I still have counsel for
`
`10
`
`Petitioner on the line?
`
`11
`
` MR. RENNER: You do, Your Honor. Thank
`
`12
`
`you.
`
`13
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: And do I still have
`
`14
`
`counsel for Patent Owner on the line?
`
`15
`
` MR. NOROOZI: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`16
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: And do I still have the
`
`17
`
`court reporter?
`
`18
`
` THE REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`19
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: We are going to send out
`
`20
`
`an order shortly that will explain everything
`
`21
`
`that we discussed on this conference call, but
`
`22
`
`we are going to order new briefing.
`
`23
`
` Petitioner you will get a 12-page brief.
`
`24
`
`With it you may submit a new supporting
`
`25
`
`declaration. We need to work out schedule for
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 19 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`when you can have that.
`
` Would you be able to have your brief in
`
`it by Wednesday the October 25th or Friday the
`
`27th? Petitioner, is that doable?
`
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, I believe so.
`
`If offline we find that it's not, we will
`
`certainly reach out, but thank you, Your Honor.
`
` MR. NOROOZI: Patent Owner, in
`
`10
`
`opposition you will be allowed 12 pages. Patent
`
`11
`
`Owner will also get to depose the declarant on
`
`12
`
`the new declaration.
`
`13
`
` Patent Owner, would you be able to have
`
`14
`
`your opposition in by November 10th?
`
`15
`
` MR. NOROOZI: Your Honor, we have
`
`16
`
`another oral hearing in November. We also have
`
`17
`
`several other briefs and various IPRs due that
`
`18
`
`month, and I'm not sure that we could do it by
`
`19
`
`November 10th.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Okay, here's what we're
`
`21
`
`going to do. Petitioner, you get the 12-page
`
`22
`
`for your opening brief. Patent Owner, you get
`
`23
`
`12 pages for an opposition. Petitioner, in
`
`24
`
`response you can have a five-page reply.
`
`25
`
`Petitioner gets the new declaration support of
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 20 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`their opening brief. Patent Owner, you get to
`
`depose that declarant.
`
` Here's what we're going to do. I want
`
`parties to go offline. I want you to work out a
`
`schedule for me for when each of your briefs,
`
`opposition replies can be done. I want you to
`
`agree on a date for the deposition, if it's
`
`needed.
`
`10
`
` I want you to also know we are not going
`
`11
`
`to expunge the original briefs. That way,
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner, if you need to refer back to them
`
`13
`
`in order to contest any inconsistency or
`
`14
`
`credibility, you may do so.
`
`15
`
` So I need the parties to go back, work
`
`16
`
`out a schedule and submit it to the Board. Once
`
`17
`
`we have that information, we will submit a new
`
`18
`
`amended scheduling order that will cover all of
`
`19
`
`these dates.
`
`20
`
` Questions?
`
`21
`
` MR. NOROOZI: Yes, Your Honor, I have a
`
`22
`
`couple of questions.
`
`23
`
` The first is, it's my understanding that
`
`24
`
`if we think it's appropriate and necessary we
`
`25
`
`can also include an expert declaration in
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 21 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`support of our briefing Patent Owner's briefing
`
`so long as we give Apple an opportunity to take
`
`a deposition if they need to; is that correct?
`
` THE WITNESS: That is authorized, yes.
`
`Once I have your schedule, we will amend the
`
`scheduling order for both these proceedings. We
`
`will be pushing back the November 30th hearing
`
`date. And if necessary, we will push back the
`
`10
`
`deadline for both proceedings for a good cause.
`
`11
`
` Did you have another question?
`
`12
`
` MR. NOROOZI: I do, Your Honor. The
`
`13
`
`second question is, while the 12 pages of
`
`14
`
`briefing is limited, is there any limit that the
`
`15
`
`Board is imposing on the length of the
`
`16
`
`declaration that Petitioner can put in or the
`
`17
`
`amount of new art or references or argument?
`
`18
`
`Because without any kind of limitation on what
`
`19
`
`their expert can say and can put in, they could
`
`20
`
`obviously introduce an avalanche of new material
`
`21
`
`through that expert declaration, and it would be
`
`22
`
`quite difficult to grapple with in 12 pages of
`
`23
`
`response of briefing for us.
`
`24
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: I understand your
`
`25
`
`concern, Mr. Noroozi. However, I do believe
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 22 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`that the Board's rules against incorporation by
`
`reference will prohibit Petitioner from doing
`
`such a thing. If the arguments cannot be made
`
`and amply supported in their brief, they can't
`
`be made and amply supported.
`
` MR. NOROOZI: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Petitioner, you
`
`understand that, correct?
`
`10
`
` MR. RENNER: Yes, Your Honor. Thank
`
`11
`
`you.
`
`12
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Very good.
`
`13
`
` Any other questions, Mr. Noroozi?
`
`14
`
` MR. NOROOZI: None for me, Your Honor.
`
`15
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Any questions from the
`
`16
`
`Petitioner?
`
`17
`
` MR. EDELL: Your Honor, very briefly,
`
`18
`
`this is Joe Edel for the Patent Owner.
`
`19
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Yes.
`
`20
`
` MR. EDELL: There's a third seating that
`
`21
`
`affects this same -- it's a 1739 proceeding. In
`
`22
`
`that proceeding there is no motion to amend. I
`
`23
`
`just want to alert you to the fact that it
`
`24
`
`current has the same schedule as these two
`
`25
`
`proceedings we're discussing. So to the extent
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 23 of 25
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`you do change the schedule, I suggest you also
`
`suggest changing the schedule for the 1739 to be
`
`consistent with these schedules.
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: We will look and see if
`
`that's necessitated.
`
` Petitioner, did you have any other
`
`comments or questions?
`
` MR. RENNER: Just one which is also
`
`10
`
`housekeeping. When would you like to see -- and
`
`11
`
`obviously we'll work quickly to get a schedule
`
`12
`
`together with our counterparts. I just want to
`
`13
`
`make sure we're on time for you. So what
`
`14
`
`schedule would you like to have us submit that,
`
`15
`
`proposed schedule?
`
`16
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: I would prefer to have it
`
`17
`
`no later than noon Eastern time Tuesday,
`
`18
`
`October 17th. That should be plenty of time for
`
`19
`
`you guys to get together and agree on something.
`
`20
`
` MR. RENNER: Agreed. Thank you.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Do we have any other
`
`22
`
`questions?
`
`23
`
` MR. RENNER: None for Petitioner.
`
`24
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: Any from Patent Owner?
`
`25
`
` Very good. Hearing nothing further, we
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 24 of 25
`
`

`

` ROUGH DRAFT
`
`are adjourned. Thank you very much. Gentlemen,
`
`have a very nice weekend.
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Realtime 2031
`Page 25 of 25
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket