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