UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
