`
`·2· · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · APPLE INC.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`·6
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · · IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`·9
`· · · · · · · · · · · · Case IPR 2017-00896
`10· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent No. 8,659,571
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · Case IPR 2017-00897
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent No. 8,773,356
`12
`
`13
`
`14· ·BEFORE:· NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`15· · · · · · MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`16· · · · · · BYRAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`17· · · · · · MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · · · 10:31 A.M.
`
`22
`
`23· ·REPORTED BY:· ANNA M. HORTON, CSR No. 6950, RPR
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-1
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES (All Telephonic)
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`·4· · · · · · MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`·5· · · · · · BYRAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`·6· · · · · · MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·For the Petitioner:
`
`·9· · · · · · DLA PIPER
`
`10· · · · · · BY:· JAMES M. HEINTZ
`
`11· · · · · · Attorney at Law
`
`12· · · · · · 11911 Freedom Drive
`
`13· · · · · · Suite 300
`
`14· · · · · · Reston, Virginia 20190
`
`15· · · · · · (703) 773-4000
`
`16· · · · · · jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`
`17· ·For the Patent Owner:
`
`18· · · · · · IRELL & MANELLA
`
`19· · · · · · BY:· MICHAEL FLEMING
`
`20· · · · · · Attorney at Law
`
`21· · · · · · 1800 Avenue of the Stars
`
`22· · · · · · Suite 1900
`
`23· · · · · · Los Angeles, California 90067
`
`24· · · · · · (310) 277-1010
`
`25· · · · · · mfleming@irell.com
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-2
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·10:31 A.M. (PST)
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---oOo---
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Let's get started.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·First thing I want to address is that the
`
`·7· ·e-mails sent to the Board, I need to remind everybody
`
`·8· ·that the purpose of e-mails received by the Board or
`
`·9· ·sent by the parties is to provide a brief overview of
`
`10· ·what sort of things are at issue and outline when a call
`
`11· ·might be available.· And unfortunately, the opening
`
`12· ·e-mail in this chain was way too long with way too many
`
`13· ·details, and we can't have that going forward.· It just
`
`14· ·clogs everybody up, and it won't work.
`
`15· · · · · · ·So as I say, in the future, when contacting
`
`16· ·us, just give us a brief explanation of the main -- the
`
`17· ·subject that we need to discuss and maybe some very
`
`18· ·little background information and when people are
`
`19· ·available to call.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Is that understood, Patent Owner?
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Yes, Your Honor.· I was just
`
`22· ·trying to do what you're suggesting.· I didn't realize
`
`23· ·it was too much.
`
`24· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Okay.· Fair enough.
`
`25· · · · · · ·Petitioner understands that as well, I assume?
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-3
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· We do, Your Honor.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· All right.· With that, the
`
`·3· ·subject is whether proper service was effected I
`
`·4· ·believe, and details, I'm going to let the Patent Owner
`
`·5· ·start with the details of what its concerns are here.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·For IPR-00896, I'm going to call that the
`
`·8· ·896 IPR; and IPR-00897 I'm going to call that the
`
`·9· ·897 IPR.
`
`10· · · · · · ·We're requesting the Board's authorization to
`
`11· ·file a motion to deny the petition a February 12, 2017,
`
`12· ·filing date for failure to effect service to the Patent
`
`13· ·Owner.
`
`14· · · · · · ·Also, we're requesting to file a motion for
`
`15· ·dismissal of the petition for failing to file the
`
`16· ·petition within one year after the petition was served
`
`17· ·with the complaint pursuant to 37 CFR 42.101.
`
`18· · · · · · ·And we're also requesting the Board's
`
`19· ·authorization for additional discovery to compel the
`
`20· ·Petitioner to provide us a declaration for each IPR from
`
`21· ·the DLA personnel attesting to the fact regarding
`
`22· ·packaging and mailing of the packages containing the
`
`23· ·petition.
`
`24· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· May I interrupt for a second?
`
`25· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Yes, please.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-4
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· I'm curious.· What date is the
`
`·2· ·one-year bar date here?
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· The one-year bar date is
`
`·4· ·February 12th, 2017.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· That falls on a Sunday;
`
`·6· ·correct?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· That's right.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Okay.· So that would
`
`·9· ·effectively make it February 13th.
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· No, Your Honor.· The one-year
`
`11· ·bar date is February 12th, 2017.
`
`12· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Okay.· Proceed with what you
`
`13· ·were saying earlier.
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· 35 USC 315 (b) states that --
`
`15· ·bars institution of a petition filed more than one year
`
`16· ·after the date Petitioner is served, and Petitioner was
`
`17· ·served with the complaint in District Court of Delaware
`
`18· ·on February 12th, 2016, for each of these patents at
`
`19· ·issue here.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Also, the other applicable legal standard
`
`21· ·controlling here is 37 CFR 42.106 sets forth
`
`22· ·requirements that must be met before a petition can be
`
`23· ·accorded a filing date.· In particular the section 106
`
`24· ·(a)(2) states that a petition to institute inter partes
`
`25· ·review will not be accorded a filing date until the
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-5
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·petition satisfies that requirement of (2) effecting
`
`·2· ·service of the petition on the corresponding address
`
`·3· ·that's provided by Rule 42.105(a).
`
`·4· · · · · · ·And then the other applicable standard is also
`
`·5· ·37 CFR 42.6(e)(2) which requires service simultaneous
`
`·6· ·with the filing.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Just to back up just a little bit, there was
`
`·8· ·also an e-mail service, but that was not proper because
`
`·9· ·the e-mail was to Irell & Manella, who is not the patent
`
`10· ·owner of record for these patents as required by
`
`11· ·37 CFR 42.105 (a).· Then the question is is the UPS
`
`12· ·mailing did not provide effective service on Sunday,
`
`13· ·February 12th, 2017.
`
`14· · · · · · ·And I just want to make clear the facts here.
`
`15· ·The certificate of service for the 896 IPR petition, the
`
`16· ·date the petition was served by depositing it on
`
`17· ·February 12, 2017, hard copies in a drop box for the
`
`18· ·United Parcel Service directed to the attorneys of
`
`19· ·record for the patent at the following address,
`
`20· ·Immersion Corporation, 50 Rio Robles, San Jose,
`
`21· ·California.· And the certificate of service for the 897
`
`22· ·IPR petition states the Petitioner was served by
`
`23· ·depositing on February 12, 2017, hard copies in a drop
`
`24· ·box for the United Parcel Service directed to the
`
`25· ·attorneys of record for the Patent Owner at the
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-6
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·following address, for Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton,
`
`·2· ·LLP, 1001 W. 4th Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·UPS service is not available on a Sunday, and
`
`·4· ·for the 896 IPR and the 897 IPR, the UPS service
`
`·5· ·tracking shows the boxes containing the petition were
`
`·6· ·picked by UPS at 6:26 p.m. on the 13th at a location in
`
`·7· ·Austin, Texas.· For both IPRs the dimension of the UPS
`
`·8· ·boxes delivered are larger than the maximum size of
`
`·9· ·16 inches-by-13 inches-by-3 inches, allowed by UPS for
`
`10· ·packages to be deposited in a UPS box.
`
`11· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Can I interrupt again?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Sure.
`
`13· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· When did the Patent Owner
`
`14· ·receive the boxes?· Do you know?
`
`15· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Yeah, I do know.· Bear with me
`
`16· ·here.
`
`17· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Sure.
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· For the ones in Salem, the
`
`19· ·tracking shows it was delivered on February 14th, 2017,
`
`20· ·at 10:11 a.m.· And for the San Jose location, it was
`
`21· ·delivered on February 14th, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.· And
`
`22· ·those times are local times.· The first one was east
`
`23· ·coast and the second one was Pacific.
`
`24· · · · · · ·So what we have here though is for the
`
`25· ·896 IPR, the depth dimension of the UPS box is five and
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-7
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·a half inches, which is two and a half inches thicker
`
`·2· ·than allowed.· And for the 897 IPR, the depth dimension
`
`·3· ·of the UPS box is five inches, which is two inches
`
`·4· ·thicker than allowed.· So this evidence calls in
`
`·5· ·question that the boxes containing petitions were
`
`·6· ·deposited in the UPS drop box.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Your Honor, I want to point you to Yamaha
`
`·8· ·Corporation of America vs. Blackhills Media, LLC,
`
`·9· ·IPR-2013-00593, and a decision on a motion March 20th,
`
`10· ·2014.· The Board did find depositing the package
`
`11· ·containing a petition into a U.S. Postal Service mail
`
`12· ·slot effects service; however, this case is
`
`13· ·distinguished by the fact, in this case, first, we do
`
`14· ·not have depositing in a mail slot in a United States
`
`15· ·government-owned postal building.
`
`16· · · · · · ·And also we do not have -- instead what we
`
`17· ·have is a UPS drop box in the lobby of an office
`
`18· ·building, and that is not equivalent to a U.S. Postal
`
`19· ·Service mail slot in a United States postal building.
`
`20· ·The two are -- one is not secured whatsoever, and, two,
`
`21· ·the drop box rule for the USPTO is based upon dropping
`
`22· ·it into the U.S. Postal Service is part of the same
`
`23· ·government that the United States Patent Office is, so
`
`24· ·that would -- they would accept that service.· But this
`
`25· ·is different.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-8
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·And then second, even if the Board finds that
`
`·2· ·the drop box is equivalent, the Petitioner has
`
`·3· ·established that the packages were -- the Petitioner has
`
`·4· ·not established that the packages were placed inside the
`
`·5· ·UPS drop box.· Counsel has only provided pictures of the
`
`·6· ·UPS drop box, but these pictures do not establish a
`
`·7· ·mailing.· We have requested that Petitioner provide us a
`
`·8· ·declaration by the person who allegedly placed the
`
`·9· ·packages in the UPS drop box, but the Petitioner has
`
`10· ·refused.
`
`11· · · · · · ·Finally, we have evidence that the packages
`
`12· ·are larger than the maximum size allowed by UPS for
`
`13· ·packages to be deposited in a UPS drop box.· So this
`
`14· ·raises the presumption that the packages containing the
`
`15· ·petition could not be placed in the UPS drop box.
`
`16· · · · · · ·So we're requesting authorization to file a
`
`17· ·motion for additional discovery to compel the Petitioner
`
`18· ·to provide us a declaration for each IPR from the DLA
`
`19· ·personnel attesting to the fact regarding packaging the
`
`20· ·copies and exhibits or at least the receipt of the
`
`21· ·finally assembled set of materials in a box that has
`
`22· ·specified dimensions, length, width, and height,
`
`23· ·preparing the UPS label, and attaching that UPS label to
`
`24· ·the package, placing the labeled package in the package
`
`25· ·shoot of the UPS drop box in the lobby of the building
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-9
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·in which DLA office is located at 401 Congress Avenue,
`
`·2· ·Austin, Texas, closing the shoot, resulting in the
`
`·3· ·package dropping it inside the UPS drop box, such that
`
`·4· ·the package was not retrievable, and the time of placing
`
`·5· ·of package in the UPS drop box.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·Our request for this additional discovery
`
`·7· ·is necessary as per the statute 35 USC 316(a)(5), and
`
`·8· ·our request meets the five factors set forth in Garmin
`
`·9· ·International v. Cuozzo Speed Tech, IPR-2012-00001 which
`
`10· ·is marked informative.
`
`11· · · · · · ·For instance, factor one is met because
`
`12· ·establishing the filing date prior to the 315(b) is
`
`13· ·necessary in the interest of justice.· And moreover, the
`
`14· ·Petitioner has possession of this evidence as to how the
`
`15· ·packages containing the petition were provided to the
`
`16· ·UPS service.
`
`17· · · · · · ·And factor two is met because the evidence
`
`18· ·requested is not for petition's litigation position, but
`
`19· ·is only for the IPR.
`
`20· · · · · · ·The factor three is met because the evidence
`
`21· ·cannot be reasonably figured out or assembled without
`
`22· ·this discovery request.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Factor four is met because our request is
`
`24· ·certainly easily understandable.
`
`25· · · · · · ·And five is met because it's not overly
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-10
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·burdensome.· It's just requiring a declaration.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·And in addition to this, we're also requesting
`
`·3· ·a motion for -- to file -- to deny the petition of the
`
`·4· ·February 12th date as well as a motion to dismiss for
`
`·5· ·the failure to file the petition within the one-year bar
`
`·6· ·time.· This is based upon the two reasonings in that we
`
`·7· ·don't believe placing the petition -- the boxes
`
`·8· ·containing the petitions into a simple drop box operated
`
`·9· ·by a private concern that's not secured and not part of
`
`10· ·the U.S. government is equivalent to depositing it in
`
`11· ·the U.S. mail.
`
`12· · · · · · ·And finally, we wonder and believe and the
`
`13· ·evidence will tell us, if we are granted a motion for
`
`14· ·additional discovery, how actually -- what, you know,
`
`15· ·what actually happened here.· So we think it's a
`
`16· ·reasonable request.· We defer to the Board for
`
`17· ·additional --
`
`18· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Thank you, Patent Owner.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Let's hear what the Petitioner has to say on
`
`20· ·the matter.
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`22· · · · · · ·I heard Mr. Fleming say that we don't know
`
`23· ·what happened.· We do know what happened.· What happened
`
`24· ·is what is stated on the certificate of service that was
`
`25· ·filed under my electronic signature.· That certificate
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-11
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·of service clearly says that these hard copies were
`
`·2· ·deposited in a drop box for UPS on February 12th, 2017.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·I stand by that statement on my word as an
`
`·4· ·attorney in the patent office and in several state
`
`·5· ·courts and federal circuits and other courts around the
`
`·6· ·country.· We know what happened.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Second, as Your Honor has questioned, there is
`
`·8· ·no concern here --
`
`·9· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Excuse me, sir.
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· Yes?
`
`11· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Is there evidence?· Is there a
`
`12· ·receipt or something that if we were to brief this, that
`
`13· ·they could be provided?
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· I'm sorry, Your Honor, I didn't
`
`15· ·catch that question.
`
`16· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Is there a receipt or something
`
`17· ·that you have that could be provided to support your
`
`18· ·sworn statement?
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· Yes.· I have our shipment receipt
`
`20· ·that says when the label was printed out.
`
`21· · · · · · ·There is also UPS records that say the package
`
`22· ·was picked up the next day on Monday which is entirely
`
`23· ·consistent with it being placed in that box on Sunday.
`
`24· · · · · · ·Is that -- would that suffice?
`
`25· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Well, that's evidence.· I'm not
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-12
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·going to decide the case right this moment, but I'll let
`
`·2· ·-- that's good to know, and I'll let you proceed then.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· Sure.· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·So the only issue, the only objective fact on
`
`·5· ·which anything that is stated in the certificate of
`
`·6· ·service could be questioned, is this concept that on
`
`·7· ·some website for UPS it says that the maximum size of
`
`·8· ·the package can be three inches high, and, on our
`
`·9· ·shipping receipts which also list the dimension of the
`
`10· ·packages that we sent, it says the packages were five
`
`11· ·and six inches high.
`
`12· · · · · · ·As you heard Mr. Fleming allude to, after he
`
`13· ·raised this question with us, we went downstairs to the
`
`14· ·drop box with a tape measure and measured the opening
`
`15· ·and took pictures of the opening of the drop box with
`
`16· ·the tape measure in place showing that that opening is
`
`17· ·actually eight inches high and much wider than 12 or 13
`
`18· ·inches, whatever the maximum width is.
`
`19· · · · · · ·We sent those pictures to Mr. Fleming and we
`
`20· ·did this after we met and conferred and after I had
`
`21· ·offered to give him a declaration in which -- if the
`
`22· ·declaration would end the factual inquiry, and after he
`
`23· ·refused to accept the declaration.· So at that point I
`
`24· ·went down, had a number of pictures taken of the drop
`
`25· ·box showing that the opening of that thing is more than
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-13
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·wide enough to accept the packages.· And, in fact, the
`
`·2· ·photos also showed the same size package in various
`
`·3· ·stages of being put into the drop box.· So, you know,
`
`·4· ·he's already got the pictures.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·And when we met and conferred with this, I
`
`·6· ·told Mr. Fleming that, you know, if he wanted to verify
`
`·7· ·these facts for himself, if he thought I was
`
`·8· ·photo-shopping pictures or something, this is, as he
`
`·9· ·mentioned, a public building.· And he's free to have
`
`10· ·anybody who wants to go in there and make their own
`
`11· ·measurements and take their own pictures.
`
`12· · · · · · ·And as Your Honor has already alluded to,
`
`13· ·there's no question that the package was picked up by
`
`14· ·UPS on Monday the 13th, which is the day following
`
`15· ·Sunday the 12th, and even, you know, that service is
`
`16· ·timely under the Board's rules.· So there's simply no
`
`17· ·basis for any kind of motion to deny us any filing date
`
`18· ·because, even if it had happened on the 13th, which it
`
`19· ·did not, it would still have been timely.
`
`20· · · · · · ·And since there's no basis for any motion to
`
`21· ·deny us a filing date based on incontrovertible facts,
`
`22· ·then that any discovery on this point is without any
`
`23· ·basis.· It can't do any good for Petitioner, and,
`
`24· ·therefore, we would request the discovery get denied for
`
`25· ·that simple basis.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-14
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Simply put, Your Honor, there is no reason to
`
`·2· ·believe, there is no evidence that contradicts anything
`
`·3· ·that's in the certificate of service.· I am not aware of
`
`·4· ·any instances where what's in a certificate of service
`
`·5· ·without any reasonable basis has been questioned and
`
`·6· ·that would entitle Immersion to the relief they're
`
`·7· ·requesting in this case.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Okay.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· And one other point, Your Honor,
`
`10· ·I would like to just make for the record.
`
`11· · · · · · ·As stated in the certificate of service, we
`
`12· ·served both Mr. Fleming and Mr. -- and I apologize if
`
`13· ·I've got his name incorrect -- but Redjaian, the two
`
`14· ·counsel of record in this case.· We served them both by
`
`15· ·e-mail.· We sent an e-mail notification, and we used a
`
`16· ·service like Drop for large files, and our records
`
`17· ·indicate that either Mr. Fleming or someone using his
`
`18· ·credentials accessed that information on Monday the 13th
`
`19· ·before noon that day.
`
`20· · · · · · ·And so you know, I understand that the service
`
`21· ·needs to be made on the address of record, which we did
`
`22· ·do by hard copy, but we also served them, and these
`
`23· ·gentlemen were counsel in the two prior IPRs involving
`
`24· ·these two patents at issue in these IPRs and are also
`
`25· ·counsel here.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-15
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·We also note that they filed mandatory notices
`
`·2· ·where they agreed to accept electronic service and then
`
`·3· ·asked us if we would consent to expunge those notices.
`
`·4· ·And when we asked them why, they refused and filed
`
`·5· ·corrected notices to change the consent to electronic
`
`·6· ·service, which apparently was all in furtherance of the
`
`·7· ·motion they're now pursuing.· And with that I'll rest.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Thank you, sir.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·I'm going to talk to the panel about this, and
`
`10· ·we'll get back to you.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Your Honor, can I at least have
`
`12· ·a chance to respond to a couple things?
`
`13· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Briefly, yeah.· Okay.
`
`14· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· One is it really isn't true that
`
`15· ·we didn't accept the declaration.· We had gotten back to
`
`16· ·them with an e-mail saying that we would accept the
`
`17· ·declaration, but at that point the Petitioner said,
`
`18· ·well, it's too late.· It could have ended the matter
`
`19· ·there with that e-mail.
`
`20· · · · · · ·And the next thing I would like to point out
`
`21· ·is the certificate doesn't say who put this in a drop
`
`22· ·box or where the drop box was.· A drop box --and when I
`
`23· ·asked Federal Express (sic) about this, they consider
`
`24· ·drop boxes as simply a place marked Federal Express -- I
`
`25· ·mean, sorry, I talked to UPS.· And they view a drop box
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-16
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·as simply something that's marked as a shelf in a law
`
`·2· ·office.· They routinely go to law offices and pick up
`
`·3· ·stuff.· So I don't believe that the certificate of
`
`·4· ·service really establishes all the evidence.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Okay.· Well, with that I think
`
`·6· ·I'll confer with the panel here, and we'll get back to
`
`·7· ·you momentarily.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·Thanks.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Thank you.
`
`10· · · · · · ·(A discussion was held off the record.)
`
`11· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· I'm back.
`
`12· · · · · · ·We're going to discuss this a bit more off
`
`13· ·line.· So we won't issue an order here on the phone
`
`14· ·call, but we will issue a written order soon outlining
`
`15· ·what will happen here.
`
`16· · · · · · ·In the meantime, Patent Owner, if you could
`
`17· ·file the transcript of the call as an exhibit when it's
`
`18· ·available, we would appreciate that.
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. FLEMING:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`20· · · · · · ·Would you like it to be expedited so you can
`
`21· ·have it as soon as possible?
`
`22· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· With that, anything else urgent
`
`23· ·that either party needs to address?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MR. HEINTZ:· Not for Petitioner, Your Honor.
`
`25· · · · · · ·JUDGE POWELL:· Okay.· We're adjourned then.
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-17
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· ·Thank you everyone for your time.
`
`·2· ·MR. FLEMING:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`·3· ·MR. HEINTZ:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`·4· ·(The proceedings were adjourned at 11:00 a.m.)
`
`·5· · · · · · · · ·---oOo---
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-18
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·STATE OF CALIFORNIA· · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· ·ss.
`·4· ·COUNTY of LOS ANGELES· ·)
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · ·I, Anna M. Horton, Certified Shorthand
`
`·7· ·Reporter for the State of California, hereby certify:
`
`·8· · · · · · THAT the Transcript of Proceedings was written
`
`·9· ·by me in stenotype and was thereafter reduced to printed
`
`10· ·matter under my direction and supervision, and I hereby
`
`11· ·declare that said Transcript of Proceedings is a full,
`
`12· ·true and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so
`
`13· ·taken.
`
`14· · · · · · ·I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am in no way
`
`15· ·interested in the outcome of said action.
`
`16· · · · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed
`
`17· ·my name this 7th day of April, 2017.
`
`18
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · _________________________________
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·ANNA M. HORTON, RPR, CSR 6950
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-19
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-20
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-21
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-22
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-23
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-24
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-25
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-26
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`
`
`Immersion Ex 2001-27
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2017-00896
`
`