`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` _________________
`
` APPLE, INC.
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` VALENCELL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` __________________
`
` Case IPR2017-00319
`
` Case IPR2017-00321
`
` Patent 8,923,941 B2
`
` ___________________
`
` Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN
`
` and SHEILA F. McSHANE,
`
` Administrative Patent Judges
`
` ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
` Veritext Legal Solutions
`
` Mid-Atlantic Region
`
` 1250 Eye Street NW - Suite 350
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`APL1072
`Apple v. Valencell
`IPR2017-00319
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 2
`
` APPEARANCES
`
` FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`
` MS. MICHELLE HOLOUBEK
`
` MR. MICHAEL D. SPECHT
`
` 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 600
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` (202) 371-2600
`
` FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` BRAGALONE CONROY, PC
`
` MR. JEFFREY BRAGALONE
`
` MR. JUSTIN B. KIMBLE
`
` MR. WILLIAM KENNEDY
`
` 2200 Ross Avenue 4500 W
`
` Dallas, Texas 75201
`
` (214) 785-6670
`
`Reported by:
`
`Ms. Suzanne Benoist, RPR, CCR-MO, CCR-KS, CSR-IL
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`515 Olive Street, Suite 300
`
`St. Louis, MO 63101
`
`(314) 203-2987
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 3
`
` -oOo-
`
` (Whereupon, the hearing began at 1:01 p.m.)
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: I'd like to begin with
`
`a roll call. Who do we have on the call for
`
`petitioner, please?
`
` Ms. Holoubek: Good afternoon Your
`
`Honor. This is Michelle Holoubek for petitioner
`
`Apple and I'm also joined by my co-counsel Mike
`
`Specht.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you. And who do
`
`we have on the call for the patent owner?
`
` MR. KIMBLE: Your Honor, this is
`
`Justin Kimble and also with me is co-counsel Jeff
`
`Bragalone and Bill Kennedy.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you.
`
` Do we have court reporter on the call
`
`today?
`
` MR. KIMBLE: We didn't request one
`
`but we understand the petitioner did.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Let me jump in and say
`
`that we do have a court reporter on the line.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Since we have a court
`
`reporter on the line I'd like to remind the parties
`
`that they should not under any circumstances
`
`interrupt another speaking during the call, that
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 4
`
`will ensure that we have a clear transcript. I
`
`would ask also the court reporter not to interrupt
`
`any of the speakers unless it is absolutely
`
`necessary. I would ask all speakers to identify
`
`themselves before they begin speaking so that the
`
`court reporter should not have to ask who is
`
`speaking.
`
` And this question is directed to the
`
`court reporter: When does the court reporter
`
`believe that he or she will be able to have the
`
`transcript of this call available?
`
` (WHEREUPON, A DISCUSSION WAS HELD OFF THE RECORD)
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: I would ask patent
`
`owners, or petitioner since you arranged for the
`
`court reporter to please give a copy of the court
`
`reporter's transcript to the patent owner before
`
`filing it so that any errata can be resolved before
`
`the transcript is filed.
`
` Is that clear petitioner?
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: It is. We'll do that.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Patent owner?
`
` MR. KIMBLE: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Okay. The purpose of
`
`this call is to discuss the potential consequences
`
`of the staff's institute ruling on this proceeding
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 5
`
`and, or these proceedings. As you know we have
`
`instituted on I believe all claims and all grounds
`
`in the IPR2017-321 case, and as a result I do not
`
`believe there are any vast consequences to that, or
`
`in that proceeding, but I will hear it if either
`
`party believes that I'm mistaken there.
`
` With regard to the 319 case, however,
`
`petitioner asserted the grounds, 11 grounds against
`
`claims 1 through 13, we instituted on claims 1, 2
`
`and 6 through 13 on eight of those grounds so this
`
`would appear to implicate SAS. I would also remind
`
`the parties that we are about one month out from
`
`the statutory deadline for issuing a final written
`
`decision in these cases. So we do not have a,
`
`well, we have a narrowing window of time in which
`
`to take action in these cases and so I would like
`
`to begin by asking the parties whether they have
`
`conferred with each other over the potential
`
`consequences of SAS.
`
` Patent owner.
`
` MR. BRAGALONE: Yes, Your Honor. We
`
`have conferred -- this is Jeff Bragalone for patent
`
`owner.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: And was any resolution
`
`reached as a result of that conference or any
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 6
`
`proposal as to how the parties believe we should
`
`proceed in this case or in the 319 case in light of
`
`SAS?
`
` MR. BRAGALONE: Well, unfortunately
`
`the parties did have differing views as to the
`
`appropriate way to proceed on the 319 matter. We
`
`did agree that there really was not a SAS issue
`
`presented by the 321 matter.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right.
`
` Petitioner would you like to respond
`
`to what Patent Owner has just said?
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` So this is Michelle Holoubek for
`
`petitioner. Again, at the outset we also agree
`
`that the 321 doesn't need any change to procedures
`
`at this time. For the 319 IPR though our position,
`
`which differed from patent owners, was that
`
`discovery be allowed to occur. We believe that if
`
`a final written decision is going to include a
`
`decision on the noninstituted claims then discovery
`
`should have been allowed to have been built on
`
`those claims. For example, we know from the other
`
`IPR that you just mentioned, the 321, that patent
`
`owner's own expert agreed that petitioner's
`
`proffered claim construction in this IPR, which the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 7
`
`Board disagreed with at first, and that's the basis
`
`for its noninstitution decision, patent owner's
`
`identified expert agrees that petitioner's claim
`
`construction was actually the correct one and
`
`because the claim wasn't instituted previously
`
`petitioner didn't have its opportunity to submit
`
`that evidence, but if the Board's going to issue a
`
`final written decision on claim 3 at least then the
`
`Petitioner shouldn't be denied the opportunity to
`
`present evidence from patent owner's own expert as
`
`contrary to their own position, so the Board can
`
`consider a fully developed record. We think it's
`
`the appropriate thing to do in light of SAS.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Let's take the claims
`
`separately. We have claims 3, claims 4 and claims
`
`5 which we have not instituted on.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Uh-huh.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Claims 4 and 5 have an
`
`issue which petitioner presented in its petition as
`
`either an improper designation of the dependency of
`
`the claim or a lack of antecedent basis with regard
`
`to the term, the application.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Uh-huh.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Those two issues seem
`
`to implicate 112, and I would like to hear from
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 8
`
`petitioner whether that is still its position as it
`
`presented in the petition.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: So Your Honor, of
`
`course the claim still hasn't changed, we recognize
`
`that there was an antecedent basis concern,
`
`however, since we weren't allowed to raise 112 in
`
`the initial petition we proposed a construction of
`
`that to, you know, to define how best we understood
`
`claims 4 and 5 and then we presented prior art
`
`ground, I believe it was ground 8, challenging
`
`those claims over the art so if the Board agrees
`
`that it has enough information, you know, to
`
`address those claims in light of the art then, you
`
`know, that evidence is already there. I'm not sure
`
`what the patent owner's position is on whether
`
`those claims are problematic under 112 or not. If
`
`they are to be considered with the art is there in
`
`the petition to consider it.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Petitioner though you
`
`would agree that an antecedent basis and an
`
`improper dependency issue would raise a 112 para 4
`
`or a 112 para 2 issue, wouldn't it?
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Yes Your Honor, we
`
`agree with that.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: And we might be forced
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 9
`
`then to address that in a final written decision,
`
`is that correct?
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: That's correct.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: And that would probably
`
`be considered a shenanigan by the Supreme Court,
`
`wouldn't you also agree?
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: I don't believe that
`
`would be considered a shenanigan. We raised it
`
`with an interpretation that would allow its
`
`consideration. If the Board said that they can't
`
`consider it because of the improper dependency I
`
`think that is, you know, the statement of why the
`
`Board can't consider it. I mean obviously we
`
`can't, the Petitioner can't change the words of the
`
`claim at this time, or at any point, so I don't
`
`think that the Supreme Court would consider the
`
`interpretation of the claim as it stands as being,
`
`having a 112 issue such that it can't be considered
`
`in an IPR, I don't think the Supreme Court would
`
`find that a shenanigan.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Well, right now Counsel
`
`we don't have any briefing on any other claim
`
`construction because patent owner didn't present it
`
`and patent owner didn't know that there was a
`
`possibility of having it considered in this
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 10
`
`proceeding at the time of the decision to
`
`institute, and in fact past the hearing in this
`
`case there was no knowledge of that so we, as you
`
`point out we have no briefing on this issue other
`
`than the presentation of the petitioner in the
`
`petition.
`
` So turning now to claim 3.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Uh-huh.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: We also did not, as you
`
`noted in your hearing request, we did not define
`
`the term application specific interface in our DI,
`
`our decision on institution, and so consequently
`
`petitioner did not address further, and we have no
`
`briefing on that so we have no construction of that
`
`term either. I understood from your comment that
`
`you were proposing that there should be briefing.
`
`What exactly is it that petitioner believes should
`
`be followed on briefing here since petitioner has
`
`made its presentation in the petition and in a
`
`hearing request and patent owner has not made any
`
`response to the positions presented by the
`
`petitioner at this time.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: I think Your Honor, so
`
`from petitioner's perspective I think the reasons
`
`that you gave are exact reasons why briefing should
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 11
`
`be re-opened on claims 3 and claims 4 through 5.
`
`We would propose that, you know, just as if these
`
`claims had originally been instituted that patent
`
`owner be given the first opportunity to address
`
`that institution, or the consideration at this
`
`stage, of the claims in the proceeding just as they
`
`would normally have done had the claim been
`
`instituted originally. You know, SAS tells us that
`
`that's the procedure that's going forward. So we
`
`would propose that a briefing be available to
`
`patent owner and then petitioner, and essentially
`
`that briefing would be limited to claims 3, 4 and 5
`
`since those are the non-instituted claims and then
`
`petitioner would have the chance to respond with I
`
`guess a supplemental petitioner's reply, this
`
`covering again claims 3, 4 and 5, so that it
`
`follows the same course as if those claims had
`
`originally been instituted on.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: And what is the timing
`
`and page limits that petitioner would suggest in
`
`light of the fact that we are supposed to have a
`
`decision written and mailed by the 6th of June?
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: So we recognize that
`
`the 6th of June, just that one month probably isn't
`
`enough time for each party to submit their papers
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 12
`
`and any evidence on those non-instituted claims,
`
`especially if, you know, it would be warranted to
`
`either party if expert depositions were to take
`
`place. The Board guidance on SAS that came out
`
`last week indicated that the SAS changes would be
`
`seen as an exceptional circumstance warranting
`
`extension past the 12 month deadline, and so we
`
`propose that each party be given a month for their
`
`response. Patent owner would have a month for
`
`preparing a patent owner's response and the
`
`petitioner would similarly have a month to prepare
`
`the reply, assuming both those are limited in scope
`
`to the previously non-instituted claim. We haven't
`
`talked over that proposal with patent owner yet
`
`because we understand they had a differing opinion
`
`as to whether or not these claims should even be
`
`brought into the proceeding at all.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: I would like to point
`
`out one thing to both parties before I turn the
`
`floor over to patent owner to respond to what
`
`petitioner has just said. I would point out that
`
`this panel, no panel as the Board, has authority to
`
`extend the deadline, only the chief judge has
`
`authority to do that, and, so that would involve a
`
`request and a presentation to the chief judge
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 13
`
`showing good cause for this extension for these
`
`claims, which as we've discussed have 112 issues
`
`which may be something we can't address at all.
`
` So as I understand it you're talking
`
`about taking a month to do, if patent owner even
`
`chooses to respond, if patent owner files something
`
`within a month then petitioner would have another
`
`month to file a reply to that. Is that correct
`
`petitioner?
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Yes, Your Honor,
`
`that's correct.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: All right. I'm going
`
`to turn the floor over to the patent owner to hear
`
`their response to petitioner's comments and
`
`proposal.
`
` MR. BRAGALONE: Thank you Your Honor.
`
`This is Mr. Bragalone.
`
` First of all, I would echo the
`
`Court's comments regarding claims 4 and 5. The
`
`Board found that those presented a Section 112
`
`issue and nothing in the SAS institute decision
`
`compels the Board to disregard the statutory limits
`
`on the types of invalidity challenge that may be
`
`adjudicated in an IPR. We believe that 35 USC
`
`Section 311(b) limits the Board's authority period
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 14
`
`if it believes as it found that there's a 112
`
`issue. Now, we don't need to agree that there's a
`
`112 issue to agree that the Court doesn't have
`
`jurisdiction. The Board doesn't have jurisdiction
`
`once it finds that there is a 112 issue. So you
`
`would have to I think disregard the actual import
`
`of the petition, which is that there's a lack of
`
`antecedent basis issue in order to allow
`
`institution in claim construction briefing. So
`
`from patent owner's perspective we don't have a
`
`response and we don't intend to present a response
`
`on this issue. The Board has already found that
`
`this is not within the purview of an IPR and
`
`there's nothing that additional briefing can add to
`
`that in order to change the fundamental
`
`jurisdictional failure.
`
` So that's our position on claims 4
`
`and 5.
`
` Did the Board have any question on
`
`that?
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: No, I'm going to let
`
`you finish your presentation patent owner and if we
`
`have questions at the end of that I'll make them at
`
`once. I don't want to interrupt your presentation.
`
`I think you've done 4 and 5, are you going to turn
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 15
`
`to 3 now?
`
` MR. BRAGALONE: Yes, thank you,
`
`Judge.
`
` So as to claim 3 the Board's guidance
`
`as to the implementation of SAS stated that the
`
`statutory deadline may be extended on a case by
`
`case basis, if required, to afford all parties a
`
`full and fair opportunity to be heard, and we
`
`believe that in this case the petitioner has had at
`
`least a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Not
`
`only were there several pages of the Court's
`
`institution decision on the claim 3 issue but then
`
`there was a 12 page motion to reconsider solely on
`
`claim 3 as to the issue as to whether or not the
`
`petition actually presented a proper claim
`
`construction, and that of course was refuted point
`
`by point in a 12 page decision denying the motion
`
`to reconsider. So specifically while we do
`
`disagree completely with the allegation as to what
`
`our expert said, that that's just not accurate, and
`
`moreover, that claim construction issue simply
`
`wasn't presented in the IPR so it was not even a
`
`topic for the parties at that time, but, we believe
`
`that there's been a full and fair opportunity for
`
`the petitioner to present its position with respect
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 16
`
`to the issue. Patent owner does not intend to
`
`present a response. Frankly there's nothing that
`
`we could add to Judge Arpin's opinion where he I
`
`think very thoroughly pointed out why the petition
`
`failed as to claim 3. Being that we couldn't say
`
`it any better than what the Board has already
`
`articulated it, we don't believe we need to present
`
`any briefing on that claim construction issue.
`
` I would correct one thing the
`
`petitioner said, we're not saying that this should
`
`not be addressed in the final written decision, but
`
`we believe that the Board has before it adequate
`
`briefing from the parties on this issue from which
`
`it may issue a final written decision on all
`
`claims, especially given the fact that we're 30
`
`days from the end of the statutory deadline.
`
`We don't believe that this situation presents the
`
`type of situation, for example that was presented
`
`in Minerva Surgical where there must be an
`
`emergency extension of the statutory deadline. So
`
`we believe that petitioner has had a full and fair
`
`opportunity to present its position on claim 3 and
`
`we believe that the Board without briefing from the
`
`parties may proceed to a final written decision
`
`that includes these issues.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 17
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Your Honor, may I
`
`respond?
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: One second please, I'd
`
`like to make some comments and ask a few questions
`
`before I turn the floor back over to the
`
`petitioner.
`
` So my understanding patent owner is
`
`that you do not intend at this time to respond, if
`
`given the opportunity you would not file a
`
`supplemental patent owner response addressing
`
`claims 3, 4 or 5, is that correct patent owner?
`
` MR. BRAGALONE: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`It's our view that if we do not provide a response
`
`then the petitioner does not have a right to reply
`
`to our response and I believe the Court indicated
`
`that previously when it suggested if the patent
`
`owner chooses to respond. So as you know it's our
`
`prerogative not to respond, we do not intend to
`
`respond. Obviously if the Court indicates that
`
`there will be briefing irrespective of our desires
`
`and the deadline coming up then we would certainly
`
`evaluate our decision in light of that, but as it
`
`stands right now our position is we do not need to
`
`file a response.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: I'd like to ask patent
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 18
`
`owner one other question.
`
` What is patent owner's position on
`
`the voluntary withdrawal of claims 3, 4 and 5 and
`
`the associated grounds from this proceeding prior
`
`to the issuance of final written decision?
`
` MR. BRAGALONE: Are you asking
`
`whether patent owner would voluntarily withdraw or
`
`petitioner?
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Whether patent owner,
`
`I'll ask petitioner in a moment to clarify their
`
`position, but I'd like to know right now whether
`
`since you've been speaking patent owner, whether
`
`patent owner would be willing to voluntarily
`
`withdraw claims 3, 4 and 5 and the associated
`
`grounds from this proceeding and have the Board
`
`continue to draft a final written decision
`
`addressing only the claims on which they were, on
`
`which review was instituted.
`
` MR. BRAGALONE: So Your Honor, from
`
`patent owner's perspective we would consent to that
`
`were petitioner obviously be willing to withdraw
`
`that.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you patent owner.
`
` I'm going to turn the floor over to
`
`petitioner now and petitioner I'd like you in
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 19
`
`particular to comment with regard to patent owner's
`
`indication that they would not be filing any
`
`further briefing in this case and to their
`
`indication that they would be willing to agree to a
`
`agreed upon withdrawal of the non-instituted claims
`
`and associated grounds from this proceeding.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Certainly Your Honor,
`
`I'll address each of those in turn.
`
` First I want to address the comment
`
`that Mr. Bragalone just made. First of all SAS
`
`tells us that if the petition is instituted then it
`
`should be instituted on all claims. Patent owner
`
`just agreed that a claim construction wasn't
`
`presented in the IPR because we didn't have the
`
`opportunity, and so we don't believe that there has
`
`been a full and fair opportunity because discovery
`
`was not allowed to develop, and if that discovery
`
`had been allowed to develop certainly relevant
`
`evidence that we've seen from the pending 321 IPR
`
`relevant evidence did develop and we weren't
`
`allowed to submit it in this proceeding because IPR
`
`had not been instituted on claim 3.
`
` Regarding the patent owner's comment
`
`that they do not intend to present a response on
`
`claim 3 and so they didn't think that petitioner
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 20
`
`would be able to file a reply. I believe the Board
`
`in a webinar earlier this week indicated that the
`
`petitioner's reply may be also responsive to the
`
`institution decision in case there was anything in
`
`there that was an issue. Obviously not
`
`supplementing the petition as it were but we think
`
`that evidence contrary to the patent owner's
`
`position from the patent owner's own expert is
`
`certainly relevant information that the Board
`
`should be aware of and so that's why we don't
`
`believe a full and fair opportunity to present all
`
`the evidence was given regarding claim 3.
`
` Regarding the patent owner consent to
`
`withdraw these claims I'm a little bit confused as
`
`to what that constitutes because in our
`
`understanding a withdrawal of the claim is an
`
`adverse, you know, by the patent owner, is
`
`essentially a request for adverse decision on this
`
`claim such that those claims can no longer be
`
`enforced, and if the patent owner is willing to say
`
`that they're canceling those claims such that those
`
`claims are no longer enforceable outside of the
`
`patent office then I think that's something that
`
`petitioner would agree to. But if patent owner
`
`intends to withdraw those claims from the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 21
`
`proceeding and still maintain all right of
`
`enforcement after the proceeding then I think that
`
`is contrary to exactly why those claims were
`
`challenged in the first place.
`
` I will say regarding claims 4 and 5
`
`that, you know, those, if the Board has determined
`
`that those claims are not patentable because of 112
`
`issues then we, I agree that we don't see any
`
`reason to open up briefing on those, but for claim
`
`3 there are no 112 issues that have been alleged
`
`regarding claim 3 in this proceeding and there is
`
`relevant evidence out there for the Board to have
`
`an opportunity to serve and so unless patent owner
`
`is willing to fully, you know, request an adverse
`
`decision on that claim we believe that that claim
`
`should be reopened for briefing.
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, you
`
`mentioned the webinar. I'm going to clarify
`
`because I think that, and I'm not going to put
`
`words into patent owner's mouth, but when I
`
`suggested and asked patent owner whether or not it
`
`would be willing to do a voluntary withdrawal of
`
`those claims it was from the proceeding, not from
`
`the patent. The webinars we've had have made clear
`
`that if the parties agree to voluntarily withdraw
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 22
`
`non-instituted claims and the associated grounds
`
`from a proceeding then we would be willing to do
`
`that and then proceed without those claims. We
`
`would probably require the parties to submit some
`
`kind of statement to us saying that they agree to
`
`the withdrawal for the record and then the
`
`proceeding would go on, our proceeding would go on
`
`without those claims. The rights and
`
`responsibilities of the parties with regard to the
`
`claims outside of our proceeding, unfortunately we
`
`have no control over that. So that, with that
`
`clarification I will eventually give patent owner
`
`the opportunity to confirm that that was their
`
`understanding when they spoke but I don't think
`
`they were asking for adverse judgment and I didn't
`
`understand them to be making a request for adverse
`
`judgment.
`
` With regard to the new evidence and
`
`arguments the patent owner does raise an important
`
`point that not only did petitioner file a petition
`
`where it presented its argument, it filed a request
`
`for rehearing arguing that we had overlooked or
`
`misunderstood some of those arguments and we ruled
`
`on that at the hearing request. If the patent
`
`owner does not file a patent owner response and
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 23
`
`leaves, or leaves arguments out of the patent owner
`
`response our scheduling order is relatively clear
`
`that those arguments are waived, that the burden of
`
`persuasion rests on and remains with the petitioner
`
`with regards to all the grounds and all the claims
`
`that they assert. So if the patent owner does not
`
`respond to an issue generally speaking under our
`
`rules, and I think you'll see this at Rule 42.23,
`
`the petitioner's options in a reply are limited to
`
`responding to arguments and issues raised by the
`
`patent owner. So I'm going to, before I go back to
`
`the patent owner I will let you to clarify anything
`
`that you've said about the need for a response
`
`petitioner.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` So SAS indicates and SAS requires
`
`that if some claims are instituted on then all
`
`claims should be instituted on and the proceeding
`
`should be allowed to develop as it otherwise would,
`
`recognizing that maybe some arguments in the
`
`petition are stronger than others, but discovery
`
`should be allowed to develop as with any other, you
`
`know, claim in the proceeding. Our petitioner
`
`reply even if, you know, for example you mentioned
`
`that patent owner may waive all arguments in
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 24
`
`response to our assertions on claim 3, we think
`
`it's important that our petition reply would be
`
`responsive to the Board's view on claim
`
`construction and captured in an institution
`
`decision. We have a right to respond to that, it's
`
`a new claim construction, not raised, it wasn't
`
`addressed in our petition because it couldn't have
`
`been, and we believe we have a right to respond to
`
`a new claim construction that we were never given
`
`the opportunity to address. Now, we can, you know,
`
`focus our response of, you know, in a very limited
`
`manner in this particular regard, we focus on the
`
`contradictory position of their expert, that
`
`information's already been obtained. I mean we
`
`could if patent owner doesn't want to file a brief
`
`we could file within just a few days evidence with
`
`their expert's contradictory testimony so the Board
`
`could consider it. At the time of the institution
`
`decision, at the time of the hearing request the
`
`Board did not have in any event discovery evidence
`
`and the whole point of the proceeding I think is so
`
`that the evidence develops as it should and because
`
`the claim construction issue was so key in the
`
`noninstitution decision we think that evidence from
`
`the patent owner itself is relevant to that.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 25
`
` JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, before I go
`
`back to the patent owner I am going to point out in
`
`your hearing request though you noted that we did
`
`not define that term, so I'm a little confused as
`
`to where there was a construction made by the Board
`
`as to the term, application specific interface. I
`
`do not believe we construed that term and so I'm a
`
`little bit confused as to where the need to respond
`
`to a construction we didn't make comes from.
`
` MS. HOLOUBEK: Your Honor, I believe
`
`it was