throbber
Rough Transcript
`
`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

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket