`
`Page 1
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` 02:01
` ROUGH DRAFT- UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
` TELECONFERENCE: 6-9-17 2:00 p.m.
` HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY
` vs.
` MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: This is Judge
` Petravick. I'm on the line with my colleague,
` Scott Daniels.
` I would like to know if counsel for the 02:01
` 7685R is on the line. 02:01
` MS. HIGGINS: Good afternoon, your 02:02
` Honor. This is Gabrielle Higgins and I am 02:02
` counsel for petitioner Hewlett-Packard 02:02
` Enterprise, Hewlett-Packard, Inc., and Aruba, 02:02
` Networks, Inc. And that's in connection with 02:02
` the IPR2016-768, which was joined with the 02:02
` 766 proceeding. 02:02
` And perhaps to clarify, we are not a 02:02
` party to the IRP 000640. 02:02
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes, I'm getting 02:02
` there. 02:02
` MS. HIGGINS: Excellent, sorry. 02:02
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 1, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 2
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And Ms. Higgins, you 02:02
` represent parties in the 766, or are there 02:02
` also counsel for the 766 on the line? 02:02
` MS. HIGGINS: So, your Honor, counsel 02:02
` for 766, Arris, is on the line. I will be 02:02
` speaking on behalf of 768 and 766, you know, 02:02
` but counsel for Arris is welcome to chime in. 02:03
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: For the 2017 00637? 02:03
` MS. HIGGINS: And your Honor, to the 02:03
` extent that that comes up, while we 02:03
` weren't -- we didn't understand that that 02:03
` would be involved today as well. I will 02:03
` speak for 210, as well. 02:03
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: You are listed as 02:03
` back-up counsel in that case I have noted. 02:03
` MS. HIGGINS: I believe with respect to 02:03
` 367 I am lead counsel, your Honor. 02:03
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ok, thank you. 02:03
` And 640, Ms. Higgins, are you counsel 02:03
` for that case, too? 02:03
` MS. HIGGINS: No. I believe 02:03
` Hewlitt-Packard, Inc., and Aruba are not 02:04
` counsel to those parties, and I believe 02:04
` counsel for Juniper will be speaking on 02:04
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 2, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 3
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` behalf of petitioners there. 02:04
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is counsel for 02:04
` Juniper on the line? 02:04
` MS. CARSON: Yes, your Honor. This is 02:04
` Rebecca Carson. I am counsel for Juniper 02:04
` Networks, Inc. 02:04
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: You're back-up 02:04
` counsel for Juniper Networks, and you have 02:04
` not been admitted to the the proceedings 02:04
` because I believe I've noted that your pro 02:04
` hac motion was not filed until last night, 02:04
` and it's not been granted. 02:04
` Is there other counsel on the line? 02:04
` MS. CARSON: So my colleague Nima 02:04
` Hefazi, also from Irell and Manella, is on 02:04
` the line. 02:04
` MR. HEFAZI: Morning, your Honor. 02:04
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And the last one is 02:04
` 642. 02:04
` MS. CARSON: So this is Rebecca Carson 02:04
` again. We were planning on taking the lead 02:04
` on speaking in any issues related to that 02:04
` petition. I'm on the line, as well as my 02:05
` colleague Nima. 02:05
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 3, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 4
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ok, Ms. Carson, but 02:05
` you've not been admitted to these proceedings 02:05
` right now. 02:05
` MS. CARSON: Ok, so Mr. Hafezi. 02:05
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: You are not 02:05
` authorized to speak on those issues, but I 02:05
` don't have a lot of questions for that 02:05
` petitioner group in general. 02:05
` MS. CARSON: Understood. 02:05
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Counsel for patent 02:05
` owner, Mr. Carson, are you on the line? 02:05
` MR. KASHA: Thank you, your Honor. 02:05
` Yes, I am on the line, and I also have Kelly 02:05
` Kasha should be on the line, and also Henning 02:05
` Schmidt. 02:05
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. It looks 02:05
` like we have the required parties are on the 02:05
` line. 02:05
` We called this meeting today to discuss 02:05
` the papers that have been filed in these 02:05
` proceedings and how they are deficient, 02:06
` according to our role. 02:06
` We're a little disappointed that some 02:06
` of the papers came in in this fashion, that 02:06
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 4, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 5
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` we're going to discuss it today and it's 02:06
` going to be put on the record in each of 02:06
` these cases so that there will be no further 02:06
` filings with these deficiencies. 02:06
` Or just to make clear that we expect 02:06
` all the rules to be followed according to the 02:06
` formatting of papers or accounts and the 02:06
` formatting of evidence. 02:06
` In the 367, the 640 and the 642, we 02:06
` still have the majority of trial to go, and 02:06
` we don't want to see papers in this format 02:06
` again. 02:06
` So the first thing I'm going to talk 02:06
` about, and I have a list, is the petitioner's 02:06
` reply in the 768 case. So, according to our 02:06
` rules the petitioner's reply is only supposed 02:07
` to be 5,600 words. The word count 02:07
` certification in the petitioner's reply says 02:07
` the petitioner's reply is 5,590 words. So 02:07
` only 10 words under the count. 02:07
` However, when we reviewed the 02:07
` petitioner's reply, we see quite a few odd 02:07
` formatting choices for the citations, and I'm 02:07
` going to list a few, and this is just a few 02:07
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 5, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 6
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` examples: For example, on the first page, 02:07
` the word "paper" is abbreviated "pap." no 02:07
` space, 13. 02:07
` There are headings where claims are 02:07
` listed CLS party, to space, one. There is 02:07
` institution decision is listed as, 02:07
` abbreviated "INST.," no space, 12. All 02:07
` citations to exhibits is REX., no space, 02:08
` 2011. 02:08
` Paragraph signs do to not have spacing 02:08
` on either side. "Emphasis original" has been 02:08
` abbreviated "EMP." no space, "ORIG". 02:08
` Section signs have been used with 02:08
` nonstandard spacing on either side, too. We 02:08
` have noticed that because the citations have 02:08
` been squished together so that there is no 02:08
` spacing, correct spacing going on; that the 02:08
` brief is about 500 words over the word count 02:08
` limit. 02:08
` We find this particularly troublesome, 02:08
` given that all the other papers filed by the 02:08
` petitioner in these cases, including recent 02:08
` papers, do not use this kind of abbreviation 02:08
` or spacing issue. 02:09
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 6, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 7
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` So, what is going to happen is that the 02:09
` petitioners reply will need to be re-filed in 02:09
` this case, and we are going to give you just 02:09
` a very limited time to do that since the 02:09
` hearing is coming up, and it is going to need 02:09
` to use more standard per citations. 02:09
` For example, Blue Book Rule 3.3 has 02:09
` spacing on either side of paragraph signs, 02:09
` spacing after periods, and spacing after 02:09
` section signs. That means that probably some 02:09
` amount of material is going to have to be cut 02:09
` from the petitioner's reply. 02:09
` In the new petitioner's reply, 02:09
` petitioner is not allowed to add subject 02:09
` matter, is not allowed to change subject 02:10
` matter, other than to make the correct 02:10
` spacing corrections, and to remove any 02:10
` material so that it is under the 500 and -- 02:10
` 5,600 word count limit. 02:10
` Miss Higgins, you signed this paper and 02:10
` you signed the word count certification. Do 02:10
` you understand what we're ordering here 02:10
` today? 02:10
` MS. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor, I do. 02:10
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 7, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 8
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, so we're 02:10
` going to give you 'till next Tuesday to 02:10
` reformat the petitioner's reply and to file a 02:10
` corrected petitioner's 's reply. 02:10
` MS. HIGGINS: And your Honor, that's 02:10
` Tuesday the 13th, correct? 02:10
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Tuesday the 13th, 02:10
` correct. 02:10
` MS. HIGGINS: Thank you. 02:10
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We also want you to 02:10
` file as an exhibit a red-line copy to show us 02:11
` what has been removed and where all the 02:11
` spaces have been added. 02:11
` MS. HIGGINS: Understood, your Honor. 02:11
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. 02:11
` Now I'd like to turn to the patent 02:11
` owner's response in the 766 case. 02:11
` We notice in the patent owner's 02:11
` response there are a lot of images of text, 02:11
` images that are only text. 02:11
` I'm going to point out to you and 02:11
` caution you that the Board rules specify a 02:11
` certain font and type ace and spacing for 02:11
` blockquotations. This is 14 point 02:11
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 8, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 9
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` proportional font, normal spacing used. 02:11
` Block point spacing are in "1.5: Spacing". 02:11
` Regular formatting is in "2.0: Spacing". 02:11
` We have noticed that you've been 02:12
` putting in these images of text, some of 02:12
` which are getting kind of blurry. 02:12
` I'm not going to make you refile the 02:12
` patent owner's response at this time, but I 02:12
` do want you to tell me right now whether the 02:12
` words in those images are counted in your 02:12
` certification? 02:12
` MR. KASHA: No, your Honor, they are 02:12
` not. 02:12
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: They are not. Your 02:12
` certification is under is what you're telling 02:12
` me, because they do not count the words in 02:12
` the images? You're under your word count 02:12
` limit right now. 02:12
` So what we're going to do for this 02:12
` patent owner's response is in the 766 case -- 02:12
` because if we were to change the formatting 02:12
` of those text images, that would move the 02:13
` pages substantially. So what I'm going to 02:13
` have you do is, you're going to have to go 02:13
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 9, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 10
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` and count the words. I have done a rough 02:13
` estimate myself. I believe you're still 02:13
` under your word count, but what I want you to 02:13
` do is file a new certificate in this 02:13
` proceeding with a correct word count. 02:13
` Do you understand that? 02:13
` MR. KASHA: Yes. Sorry, your Honor, 02:13
` yes. 02:13
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: You can do that by 02:13
` next Tuesday? 02:13
` MR. KASHA: Yes, thank you. 02:13
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: If it is over the 02:13
` word count, which I don't believe it will be 02:13
` based on the fact that I counted all the 02:13
` words, then you are going to have to refile 02:13
` the patent owner's response. 02:13
` But at that time, if it is over, you 02:13
` should contact us again. I do not want to 02:13
` see endless numbers of pages with images of 02:13
` text in them. 02:14
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, this is -- 02:14
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry, who is 02:14
` speaking? 02:14
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, this is 02:14
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 10, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 11
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` Gabrielle Higgins. If I just may, I had a 02:14
` question. The patent owner's response was 02:14
` filed January 9, 2017. We didn't see that it 02:14
` had a word count certification. 02:14
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: It's on the last 02:14
` page. And I'm looking and I'm going to 02:14
` double-check right now. 02:14
` Mr. Kasha -- 02:14
` MS. HIGGINS: So, your Honor, we're 02:14
` looking at the file that was filed in 768, 02:14
` and we don't see a certification. 02:15
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Just give me a minute 02:15
` to bring it up. My system is a little slow. 02:15
` MS. HIGGINS: Sure. 02:15
` MR. KASHA: Your Honor, this is John 02:15
` Kasha -- 02:15
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Oh, it is missing the 02:15
` word count certification in the patent 02:15
` owner's response. 02:15
` MR. KASHA: Your Honor, this is John 02:15
` Kasha. That's correct. We failed to provide 02:15
` the word count and actually Meghan Raymond, 02:15
` who was the back-up counsel at the time, 02:15
` emailed me, and I emailed her the 02:15
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 11, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 12
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` certification of the word count on January 02:15
` 20th. 02:15
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And so is it filed in 02:16
` this case? 02:16
` MR. KASHA: It is not filed in this 02:16
` case, your Honor. 02:16
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Oh, great. Then you 02:16
` can file a word count certification in this 02:16
` case by next Tuesday. 02:16
` MR. KASHA: We will do that, your 02:16
` Honor. 02:16
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Do you believe it 02:16
` will be over? 02:16
` MR. KASHA: Your Honor, I believe it 02:16
` will be over. 02:16
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ok. At this point I 02:16
` want to continue down my list of deficiencies 02:16
` and then I'm going to take a minute to speak 02:16
` about my fellow colleague judge on the line 02:16
` after we finish talking about the 02:16
` deficiencies about that matter. 02:16
` (Brief pause.) 02:16
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So, in your patent 02:16
` owner preliminary responses in the 367, 640 02:16
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 12, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 13
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` and 642, I know I saw at least one word count 02:17
` certification in those cases that they said 02:17
` they were under and they were around 11,000 02:17
` each. They also have a large number of 02:17
` images as text, or text as images, and some 02:17
` of them are blurry. They're in a variety of 02:17
` fonts and a variety of spacing. 02:17
` In those case, you need to re-file 02:17
` those patent owner preliminary responses with 02:17
` the same parameters. You can remove 02:17
` materials, but you cannot add materials or 02:17
` make any other substantive changes, other 02:17
` than fixing the -- taking the images of the 02:17
` text and making them actual words, and you 02:17
` need to refile the word count certification. 02:17
` MR. KASHA: Your Honor, this is -- 02:17
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ok. 02:18
` MR. KASHA: Sorry. Your Honor, this is 02:18
` John Kasha. Yes, we understand. The one 02:18
` question I would have is in some of the 02:18
` drawings we have quite a few words. Is that 02:18
` also something you want us to correct? 02:18
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes. I notice that 02:18
` you have quite a few words. I would like 02:18
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 13, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 14
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` those counted in the word count 02:18
` certification. 02:18
` MR. KASHA: Ok, but can we keep them -- 02:18
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I notice that there 02:18
` are images that you took, the font spacing is 02:18
` from the declaration. Is that correct? 02:18
` MR. KASHA: Yes, your Honor. 02:18
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Right. Why don't we 02:18
` leave it that way for right now. You don't 02:18
` have to redo the declaration. You need to 02:18
` redo the patent owner's preliminary response, 02:18
` and in particular as as though it's block 02:18
` quote of text, and provide another word count 02:18
` certification. 02:18
` MR. KASHA: Yes, your Honor, we will do 02:19
` that. What's the due date for that? 02:19
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Let's see, those are 02:19
` not due -- the preliminary responses are not 02:19
` due for a while, so I will give you 'till 02:19
` next week, next Friday. The other deficiency 02:19
` with those responses is that there is some 02:19
` evidence cited by URL and not by exhibit 02:19
` number. 02:19
` As you're aware, all evidence must be 02:19
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 14, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 15
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` submitted in the form of an exhibit, so that 02:19
` needs to be corrected also, and as long as 02:19
` you're making changes to the patent owner's 02:19
` preliminary response in those cases, you can 02:19
` change the URL to the correct exhibit number. 02:19
` MR. KASHA: Yes, your Honor, we will do 02:20
` that. 02:20
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, I'm going 02:20
` to take one minute and confer with my 02:20
` colleague on the matter of the patent owner's 02:20
` preliminary response in the 766 case. 02:20
` (Brief pause.) 02:20
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, I have 02:22
` consulted with my colleague, and Mr. Kasha, 02:22
` this is what we want you to do with respect 02:23
` to the patent owner's response: in the 768 02:23
` case, 768, 766 case, you need to remove those 02:23
` images of text in this case so that they are 02:23
` in words and that they are counted. If it is 02:23
` under 14,000 words, then you need to recount 02:23
` the words and file a new certificate 02:23
` certifying the word count. 02:23
` You do not need to file a new patent 02:23
` owner's response, because it will be very 02:23
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 15, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 16
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` inconvenient for the board right now to look 02:23
` at the petitioner's reply which cites the 02:23
` patent owner's response and then have the new 02:23
` cases in a new corrected patent owner's 02:23
` response, I'm quite sure that the page 02:23
` numbing is going to change. 02:23
` 0if it is over 14,000 words, the limit 02:23
` in our rules, then you must file a new patent 02:24
` owner's response. Again, the patent owner's 02:24
` response will need to remove materials to be 02:24
` under the word count limit, and like the 02:24
` petitioners you will have to file a red line 02:24
` version of the patent owner's response as an 02:24
` exhibit. 02:24
` And also for the convenience of the 02:24
` Board, you need to file a listing as an 02:24
` exhibit listing all the citations in the 02:24
` patent owner's response that's in the 02:24
` petitioner's reply and any new page number 02:24
` that that new material falls on. 02:24
` Do you understand that? 02:24
` MR. KASHA: This is John Kasha. Your 02:24
` Honor, I do. However should it refer to the 02:25
` petitioner's new reply or the old reply? 02:25
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 16, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 17
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` So the old reply, right? Because I 02:25
` won't have the new reply. 02:25
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: You can refer to the 02:25
` petitioner's old reply. 02:25
` MR. KASHA: Yes, I understand. 02:25
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ok. So that is all 02:25
` the deficiencies that I have noticed in this 02:25
` case. 02:25
` As I mentioned, this panel is very 02:25
` disappointed that practitioners who are 02:25
` subject to the Bar of the Patent Office 02:25
` cannot follow the rules, and we take these 02:25
` matters very seriously, and we are very 02:25
` disappointed. 02:25
` We do not think that these deficiencies 02:25
` were made by mistake, and I want to caution 02:25
` you that if such things as this continue in 02:25
` these cases, there may be a chance that you 02:26
` will not be allowed to file the papers. 02:26
` The Board is starting to take these 02:26
` matters very seriously. I'm going to refer 02:26
` you to Google versus Maggiore, IPR 02:26
` 2016-01535, Paper 8, for a very, very similar 02:26
` situation, in particular the fact that the 02:26
`
`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
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2004, Juniper v. MTel., Page 17, IPR2017-00640
`
`
`
`Rough Transcript
`
`Page 18
`HP ENTERPRISE COMPANY vs. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
` word count has been certified and signed by 02:26
` counsel, we find that particularly bad. 02:26
` So, I would like Ms. Higgins and Mr. 02:26
` Kasha, who signed these papers, to tell me 02:26
` that they are aware of the formatting rules 02:26
` and that they will be followed. 02:26
` MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, this is Ms. 02:27
` Higgins, and I am aware of the rules and they 02:27
` will be followed. 02:27
` I will say that we do believe that we 02:27
` did comply with the certification 02:27
` requirements, and I did the certification 02:27
` based on 37 CFR 32.24(d). 02:27
` However I understand the Board's 02:27
` concerns, and we will follow your 02:27
` instructions and be aware of the Board's 02:27
` guidance in connection with future filings. 02:27
` MR. KASHA: Your Honor, this is John 02:27
` Kasha. I'm aware of the rules and I will 02:27
` follow the rules, the Board's instructions. 02:27
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. 02:27
` Ms. Higgins, I just want to say that we 02:27
` find that the fact that