`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01897
`Patent No. 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION
`TO TAKE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR 42.52, Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)
`
`moves for authorization to request a deposition of co-inventor Yonatan Lavi via
`
`the Hague Convention of 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or
`
`Commercial Matters (hereinafter “Hague Convention”). Mr. Lavi is the true
`
`technical inventor of the challenged patent in this matter and his testimony is
`
`relevant to multiple issues expected to be argued by Bradium in its Patent Owner
`
`Response, including allegations of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`introduced by Bradium’s co-owner and named inventor Isaac Levanon. While Mr.
`
`Lavi resides in Israel, his testimony may be readily compelled because Israel has
`
`taken a permissive approach to such discovery requests.
`
`Microsoft’s makes its request now to ensure timely completion of Mr. Lavi’s
`
`deposition through the Hague Convention under the Board’s current schedule, and
`
`to avoid Bradium again arguing that a deposition through the Hague could not be
`
`timely completed.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF FACTS
`
`On January 9, 2015, Patent Owner Bradium (“Bradium”) filed a lawsuit in
`
`the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:15-cv-31-RGA
`
`(hereinafter “Delaware Case”) alleging infringement of three U.S. Patents, Nos.
`
`7,139,794 (“the ’794 Patent”), 7,908,343 (“the ’343 Patent”), and 8,924,506 (“the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`’506 Patent”). On March 14, 2016, Bradium amended its complaint to allege
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239 (“the ’239 Patent”), which is the subject
`
`of this inter partes review (IPR). All four patents are related- they claim priority to
`
`the same set of six provisional applications filed in December 2000, and the ’239
`
`Patent is a continuation of the ’506 Patent. Each patent lists Isaac Levanon and
`
`Yonatan Lavi, both of Ra’anana, Israel, as the inventors.
`
`During the pending IPRs of the ’343 and ’506 Patents, Bradium submitted a
`
`declaration from Levanon in support of its secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`arguments. See generally IPR2016-00448, Ex. 2004.1 In his declaration, Levanon
`
`generally alleged that 3DVU, Inc.- a small company operating out of the suburbs
`
`of Tel Aviv- had achieved commercial success and received praise for its
`
`technology, and that Levanon had discussed a potential acquisition of 3DVU with
`
`Microsoft in 2005.2 Ex. 1045. Mr. Levanon also acknowledged that he “close[d]
`
`3DVU around 2010.” Ex. 1030, ¶ 94. Mr. Levanon failed to disclose to the Board
`
`in his declaration that he had an indirect 50% interest in Bradium and no ability to
`
`read or write software code. Ex. 1031 at 9:22-15:13, 28:21-32:2, 38:19-39:14.
`
`
`1 Copy attached as Ex. 1030. All exhibits to this motion are for the purposes of
`this motion only, and Microsoft reserves the right to object if Bradium seeks to
`introduce the same exhibits on the merits.
`2 3DVU was previously known as GAcentral.com, Inc. and Flyover Technologies.
`While the exact corporate structure of 3DVU is unclear, 3DVU included at least a
`Delaware Corporation, 3DVU, Inc., and an Israel subsidiary, 3DVU, Ltd.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`During the prosecution of the ’239 Patent, Bradium filed a Substitute
`
`Statement in Lieu of Oath or Declaration stating that Mr. Lavi “cannot be found or
`
`reached despite diligent effort.” Ex. 1032. However, Microsoft’s counsel were
`
`able to contact Mr. Lavi easily, and learned that he had in fact been contacted on
`
`multiple occasions in 2015 and 2016 by Chris Coulson, Bradium’s lead counsel in
`
`this IPR. Ex. 1033 (emails from C. Coulson to Y. Lavi).
`
`Mr. Lavi provided a declaration in connection with IPR2016-00448 and
`
`IPR2016-00449 after Microsoft’s counsel informed Mr. Lavi that standard PTAB
`
`trial practice required a deposition if requested. In his declaration, Mr. Lavi
`
`testified, inter alia, that (1) 3DVU did not invent the file structure claimed in the
`
`various patents, and in fact had borrowed a pre-existing file format from another
`
`company (Ex. 1034, ¶¶ 6, 11-12); (2) 3DVU’s original prototype was not written
`
`for a mobile system (id., ¶ 16); (3) 3DVU’s car navigation products (relied on by
`
`Mr. Levanon as evidence of commercial success) were self-contained and did not
`
`access data over a network (id., ¶ 20); (4) Mr. Lavi developed significant
`
`improvements to the 3DVU technology not covered by the asserted Bradium
`
`claims which were incorporated in later 3DVU products (id., ¶¶ 22-26, 33-34, 36);
`
`(5) 3DVU did not provide detailed technical information or source code to
`
`Microsoft during the 2005 discussions (id., ¶¶ 27-30); (6) 3DVU’s “Navi2Go”
`
`product relied primarily on downloading map information first to a desktop
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`computer, then transferring it to a portable device, because the “real time” mobile
`
`downloading features did not work well (id., ¶¶ 31-35); and (7) 3DVU was not
`
`commercially successful, as shown by its inability to expand beyond a small
`
`number of developers or pay stock dividends to its employees (id., ¶¶ 37-39).
`
`After Microsoft filed Mr. Levanon’s declaration, Bradium requested a
`
`deposition and threatened retaliation against Mr. Lavi. Bradium accused Mr. Lavi
`
`of disclosing 3DVU confidential information, despite the fact that Mr. Lavi
`
`testified on the same topics Mr. Levanon did in his public declaration, and despite
`
`3DVU having been closed for seven years and nonexistent as a corporate entity for
`
`six. Exs. 1035, 1045 (showing 3DVU, Inc. status as “void”).
`
`Microsoft promptly communicated Bradium’s deposition request to Mr. Lavi
`
`and informed Mr. Lavi that Microsoft would pay for his travel expenses to come to
`
`the United States for deposition. Nevertheless, Mr. Lavi indicated that he did not
`
`want to be deposed because he was concerned about legal and other retaliation
`
`from Mr. Levanon. Ex. 1036. Microsoft was unable to obtain Mr. Lavi’s
`
`agreement to be deposed in the United States despite several phone calls.
`
`Microsoft attempted to work with Bradium to seek Mr. Lavi’s deposition in Israel
`
`through the Hague Convention, which Bradium refused. Ex. 1037. After the
`
`Board asked the parties to attempt to negotiate an agreement to obtain Mr. Lavi’s
`
`cooperation, Bradium responded with a proposed agreement that would have
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`required Mr. Lavi to agree that Bradium, Levanon, and 3DVU retained “the right
`
`to bring a legal action against Lavi relating to his provision of information to
`
`Microsoft or the public filing of Exhibit 1017.” Ex. 1038 (C. Coulson Mar. 12,
`
`2017 email to E. Day and attached proposed “limited waiver agreement”).
`
`Ultimately, no agreement was reached and Bradium filed a motion to exclude Mr.
`
`Lavi’s declaration. IPR2016-00448, Paper 47.
`
`On June 20, 2017, Microsoft emailed Bradium asking them to agree to the
`
`taking of Mr. Lavi’s deposition through the Hague process. Bradium rejected
`
`Microsoft’s request.
`
`Prior to filing this motion, Microsoft again informed Mr. Lavi that Microsoft
`
`would pay his travel costs if he voluntarily appeared for deposition in the United
`
`States, but Mr. Lavi did not agree. Ex. 1039 (July 11, 2017 letter to Lavi).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Microsoft’s Request is Timely
`Microsoft files this motion now to ensure that Mr. Lavi’s deposition can be
`
`taken within the time remaining in this proceeding, which Microsoft understands to
`
`have been a concern of the Board in IPR2016-00448 and IPR2016-00449.
`
`Although Bradium has not yet filed its Patent Owner Response, Mr. Lavi’s
`
`testimony is relevant to arguments that Bradium has made in related proceedings
`
`and in its preliminary response in this proceeding, as further discussed below.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`Moreover, because Mr. Lavi is the sole true technical inventor of the asserted
`
`patent, his testimony is almost certain to be relevant to material issues raised by
`
`Bradium’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`Although the Board extended Due Date 1 at Bradium’s request, Microsoft
`
`attempted to obtain additional information about the arguments Bradium intended
`
`to present in its Patent Owner Response. Bradium offered to provide such
`
`information before its requested extension was granted by the Board, but later
`
`refused to do so. Ex. 1046. If necessary, Microsoft will further update the Board
`
`in its reply brief regarding the relevance of Mr. Lavi’s testimony to the arguments
`
`made in Bradium’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`B. Mr. Lavi’s Testimony is Relevant and Cannot be Obtained by
`Alternative Means
`Discovery in an inter partes review includes “routine” discovery under 37
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1) and “additional” discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2).
`
`Routine discovery includes the “cross examination of affidavit testimony prepared
`
`for the proceeding.” To determine whether to authorize additional discovery, the
`
`Board considers the factors discussed in Garmin Int’l, Inc. et. al. v. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Tech, LLS,IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (informative)
`
`(hereinafter “Garmin”). The Garmin factors include (1) whether the request is
`
`based on more than a mere possibility of finding something useful; (2) the request
`
`does not seek the litigation positions of the other party; (3) the information is not
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`reasonably available through other means; (4) the request is easily understandable;
`
`and (5) the request is not overly burdensome to answer. All of the Garmin factors
`
`favor Microsoft’s request to take Mr. Lavi’s deposition.
`
`1.
`
`The Request is Based on More Than a Mere Possibility of
`Finding Something Useful
`
`Microsoft’s response is based on much more than the mere hope that Mr.
`
`Lavi’s testimony may be useful. Indeed, Mr. Lavi has already testified via
`
`declaration to many of the facts that Microsoft seeks to elicit. In addition to
`
`rebutting Bradium’s secondary indicia of non-obviousness arguments (by showing,
`
`inter alia, lack of commercial success, that the asserted embodiments did not
`
`practice certain claims, and that other technical features not covered by the asserted
`
`patents contributed significantly to the purported secondary indicia), Mr. Lavi’s
`
`testimony also tends to rebut the arguments that Bradium is likely to make on the
`
`merits. In addition to Mr. Levanon’s declaration, Bradium also argued that the
`
`asserted prior art references would not have been combined in the claimed manner
`
`because the resulting combination would have poor performance and that the file
`
`structure claimed in the asserted patents was a novel and inventive feature. See
`
`generally IPR2016-00448, Paper 20 at 44-51. Mr. Lavi’s testimony will show (1)
`
`that 3DVU did not invent the claimed “tiling” technology, (2) that 3DVU only
`
`adapted its technology to mobile devices after years of advances in mobile
`
`networks by others in the industry and even then with performance limitations, and
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`(3) that the inventors did not consider “mobile device” synonymous with the
`
`processing power or network connection speed of the device. In addition to the
`
`matters previously testified to, if Bradium attempts to “swear behind” the Loomans
`
`reference (Paper 9 at 23-24), Mr. Lavi may testify whether the claimed features
`
`had truly been invented by 3DVU before the Loomans priority date.
`
`2.
`
`The Request Does not Seek the Litigation Positions of the
`Other Party
`
`Mr. Lavi is not currently affiliated with Bradium and Microsoft does not
`
`seek to discover Bradium’s litigation positions through Mr. Lavi.
`
`3.
`
`The Information is Not Reasonably Available Through
`Other Means
`
`The information that Microsoft seeks to obtain from Mr. Lavi is not
`
`reasonably available through other means. While Mr. Lavi provided a declaration
`
`in IPR2016-00448 and IPR2016-00449, Bradium filed a motion to exclude Mr.
`
`Lavi’s declaration due to the lack of a deposition (which Bradium itself had
`
`derailed), and Microsoft expects that Bradium would do so again if Microsoft
`
`introduced Mr. Lavi’s declaration in this proceeding.3 Additionally, Mr. Lavi’s
`
`previous declaration did not discuss the ’239 Patent specifically.
`
`
`3 The Board may also authorize a party to compel a deposition for cross-
`examination of a witness who testifies via declaration but does not agree to be
`deposed. See, e.g. International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures
`II LLC, IPR2015-01322, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2015); Chicago Mercantile
`Exchange, Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc., CBM2015-00061, Paper 24 (PTAB Nov. 17,
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`Nor is the information requested reasonably available from Mr. Levanon.
`
`Mr. Levanon is a highly interested witness, who failed to disclose his interest in his
`
`previous testimony, and lacks the ability to even discuss the source code alleged to
`
`embody the claims. Mr. Levanon also was unable to answer basic questions about
`
`the subject matter of his own declaration. For example, Mr. Levanon was unable
`
`to answer questions about the operation of the car navigation programs that he
`
`relied on as evidence of commercial success of 3DVU technology, such as whether
`
`data was stored locally compared to on a network. Ex. 1031 at 57:7-24. While
`
`Microsoft certainly expects to cross-examine Mr. Levanon if Bradium offers his
`
`testimony again, it is unreasonable to require Microsoft to rely solely on the
`
`testimony of such a clearly biased and interested witness as Mr. Levanon to rebut
`
`Mr. Levanon’s own testimony, particularly given Mr. Levanon’s convenient lack
`
`of knowledge about relevant technical issues and general evasiveness.
`
`Finally, while there is some documentary evidence that tends to rebut
`
`Bradium’s secondary indicia of non-obviousness arguments, Microsoft’s ability to
`
`present such evidence regarding 3DVU products is generally limited to either
`
`evidence that is publicly available or that Bradium itself has chosen to selectively
`
`present in its case. Such documentary evidence is relevant, but has less evidentiary
`
`
`2015). If Microsoft’s request for direct deposition testimony is not granted,
`Microsoft requests, in the alternative, authorization to compel Mr. Lavi to appear
`for cross-examination on his declaration.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`value than testimony from the software engineer who primarily designed the
`
`technology at issue.
`
`The Request is Easily Understandable
`
`4.
`Microsoft’s request is very simple. Microsoft desires to take Mr. Lavi’s
`
`deposition. The request is easily understandable by both Bradium and Mr. Lavi,
`
`and therefore this factor favors granting Microsoft’s motion.
`
`The Request is not Overly Burdensome to Answer
`
`5.
`Microsoft’s request is not overly burdensome to answer either for Mr. Lavi
`
`or for Bradium. The burden on Mr. Lavi simply consists of appearing for a
`
`deposition. Microsoft is willing to pay Mr. Lavi’s travel costs if he agrees to be
`
`deposed in the United States. However, if Mr. Lavi continues to refuse to agree to
`
`be deposed, and his testimony is compelled through the Hague Convention, he will
`
`simply need to sit for a deposition in Israel (in the area of Tel Aviv, where he lives
`
`and works), which will impose no greater burden than any other witness whose
`
`testimony is compelled for a civil case or PTAB matter. In view of the importance
`
`of Mr. Lavi’s testimony to this case as the true technical inventor of the patent at
`
`issue, such a burden is not disproportionate to Mr. Lavi’s relevance to the case.
`
`Nor is the request overly burdensome to Bradium. While Bradium’s counsel
`
`may need to travel to attend the deposition, such travel is not out of the ordinary in
`
`commercial litigation. Moreover, Bradium initiated the litigation that caused
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`Microsoft to file this inter partes review by filing a lawsuit based on patents
`
`naming two Israeli inventors and claiming technology purportedly developed in
`
`Israel. Under such circumstances, it should not be surprising that relevant
`
`witnesses and evidence are located in Israel, nor is traveling to Israel an undue
`
`burden to Bradium. See Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services, AG, No.
`
`IPR2015-01786, Paper 61 at 4 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2016) (travel to Israel not unduly
`
`burdensome for counsel representing Israel-based Patent Owner who had
`
`previously traveled to Israel in connection with related International Trade
`
`Commission investigation). Microsoft is willing to allow Bradium’s counsel to
`
`participate in the deposition by video if it wishes to do that, or if a Bradium
`
`attorney wishes to attend live, Microsoft would be willing to pay for reasonable
`
`flight and hotel travel expenses for that attorney. Id. Additionally, if Bradium
`
`introduces Mr. Levanon’s testimony again in this proceeding, Microsoft will seek
`
`to depose Mr. Levanon, who still resides in Israel but would otherwise be required
`
`to travel to the United States. Ex. 1031 at 5:18-19. If the request for deposition of
`
`Mr. Lavi through the Hague convention is granted quickly enough, Microsoft is
`
`willing to negotiate deposition dates so that the parties may take the depositions of
`
`Mr. Levanon and Mr. Lavi in a single trip without requiring Mr. Levanon to travel
`
`to the United States.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`Therefore, the request is not unduly burdensome and this factor weighs in
`
`favor of granting the motion.
`
`C. Mr. Lavi’s Testimony may be Obtained Through a Hague
`Convention Letter of Request
`
`The Board’s rules explicitly contemplate compelling testimony outside the
`
`United States if a witness is unwilling to appear in the United States. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.52(b) states that a motion for authorization to compel testimony outside the
`
`United States must:
`
`(i) Identify the foreign country and explain why the party believes the
`witness can be compelled to testify in the foreign country, including a
`description of the procedures that will be used to compel the
`testimony in the foreign country and an estimate of the time it is
`expected to take to obtain the testimony and
`(ii) Demonstrate that the party has made reasonable efforts to secure
`the agreement of the witness to testify in the United States but has
`been unsuccessful in obtaining the agreement, even though the party
`has offered to pay the travel expenses of the witness to testify in the
`United States.
`
`Microsoft’s request meets these requirements.
`
`1.
`
`Israel Cooperates with Hague Convention Requests to Take
`Testimony
`
`Mr. Lavi resides in Israel, which is a party to the Hague Convention and has
`
`not made any reservations relating to service of process. Therefore, Israel’s central
`
`judicial authority will honor requests for testimony sent from a judicial authority in
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`the United States. In this case, although the PTAB is an administrative body,
`
`Microsoft will submit the Letter of Request through the district court judge
`
`overseeing the Delaware Action, who is indisputably a judicial authority.
`
`According to Israel’s legislation implementing the Hague Convention,
`
`International Legal Assistance Law 5758-1998 (hereinafter “Implementing
`
`Statute”),4 such requests will then be executed by the Minister of Justice, which is
`
`the designated Competent Authority according to the Convention. Implementing
`
`Statute, § 3.
`
`A Letter of Request from the United States may call for a deposition to take
`
`place according to US practice. A court in Israel executing a letter of request may
`
`order testimony to be taken before an attorney registered in Israel meeting certain
`
`experience requirements. Implementing Statute, § 16(b). Microsoft has retained
`
`such qualified counsel in Israel. Attorneys not registered in Israel, but “qualified to
`
`interrogate a witness… in the state that requested the evidence to be taken” may
`
`appear and ask questions. Id., § 17. Therefore, outside counsel for both parties
`
`may attend and question Mr. Lavi at a deposition. A person summoned to appear
`
`in response to a Letter of Request “shall bear all the obligations of a person
`
`summoned to testify before a Court in Israel.” Id., § 18(a).
`
`4 A translation of the Implementing Statute is available at
`http://www.track.unodc.org/LegalLibrary/LegalResources/Israel/Laws/Israel%20In
`ternation%20Legal%20Assistance%20Law%201998.pdf and a copy is attached for
`the Board’s convenience as Ex. 1041.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`Article 9 of the Hague Convention further states that a judicial authority
`
`which executes a Letter of Request “will follow a request of the requesting
`
`authority that a special method or procedure be followed, unless this is
`
`incompatible with the internal law of the State of execution or is impossible of
`
`performance by reason of its internal practice and procedure or by reason of
`
`practical difficulties.” Courts in Israel have interpreted this language to enable
`
`depositions upon requests from courts in the United States.
`
`In Medinol, Ltd. v. Boston Scientific Corp.et al., a party to litigation in a
`
`U.S. district court sought to take a deposition of an Israeli witness through a Hague
`
`Convention Letter of Request. The witness objected on the basis that Israeli law
`
`does not authorize depositions. However, the magistrate judge ruled that because
`
`Israeli law did not prohibit depositions either, the court could enforce a Letter of
`
`Request seeking a deposition, and consequently ordered the witness to appear for
`
`examination before a private attorney in Israel. Ex. 1043. The Supreme Court of
`
`Israel affirmed. Ex. 1044. Therefore, Mr. Lavi can be ordered to appear for
`
`deposition in Israel.
`
`Microsoft has confirmed with local counsel in Israel that requests may be
`
`executed in 45-60 days but may be expedited if necessary. Additionally, if the
`
`request is executed by ordering the witness to appear before a private attorney
`
`instead of a magistrate (as discussed above, and as Microsoft will request), there is
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`no separate delay associate with obtaining time on a magistrate’s calendar to take
`
`the examination. Therefore, despite the delay in the case schedule requested by
`
`Bradium, ample time remains in this proceeding to take Mr. Lavi’s deposition. If
`
`the execution of the request is delayed, Microsoft will not seek an extension of the
`
`oral hearing deadline and the parties will simply be placed in the same position
`
`with respect to Mr. Lavi that they would be otherwise.
`
`2. Microsoft Has Made Reasonable Efforts to Obtain Mr.
`Lavi’s Testimony in the United States
`
`As discussed above, Microsoft has on multiple occasions offered to pay Mr.
`
`Lavi’s travel expenses for a deposition in the United States and spoke to Mr. Lavi
`
`on several occasions to persuade him to appear. Therefore, Microsoft has made
`
`reasonable efforts to obtain Mr. Lavi’s testimony in the United States.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Microsoft Corporation respectfully
`
`requests that this motion be granted.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: July 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`
` /Chun M. Ng/
`Lead Counsel
`Chun M. Ng, Reg. No. 36,878
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Vinay P. Sathe, Reg. No. 55,595
`Evan S. Day, 75,992
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No.: IPR2016-01897, Patent No. 9,253,239
`Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing MOTION
`
`
`
`FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO C.F.R. § 42.52 has been
`
`served in its entirety this 14th day of July, 2017, by electronic mail on Patent
`
`Owner via its attorneys of record:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Christopher J. Coulson
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`Bradiumiprservice@kenyon.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Michael N. Zachary
`mzachary@kenyon.com
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON, LLP
`1801 Page Mill Road, Ste 210
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Clifford Ulrich
`culrich@kenyon.com
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Chun M. Ng/
`Lead Counsel
`Chun M. Ng, Reg. No. 36,878
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Vinay P. Sathe, Reg. No. 55,595
`Evan S. Day, 75,992
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`
`Dated: July 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`