`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3
`·4
`·5· ·Case No. IPR2017-01537
`· · ·U.S. Patent No. 7,154,200
`·6
`· · ·Case No. IPR2017-01538
`·7· ·U.S. Patent No. 7,928,348
`·8· ·Case No. IPR2017-01539
`· · ·U.S. Patent No. 7,683,509
`·9
`· · ·Case No. IPR2017-01497
`10· ·U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15· · · · · · · · ·TELEPHONIC HEARING
`16· · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`17· · · · · · · · Monday, May 14, 2018
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23· ·Reported by:
`24· ·SUSAN H. CAIOPOULOS, CSR No. 8122
`25· ·Job No. 10043332
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`·3
`· · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·4
`·5· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`·6
`· · ·AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD and TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`·8
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`·9
`· · · · · · ·INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`10
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`11
`· · · · · · · · · · _______________
`12
`· · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2017-01537
`13· · · · · · ·U.S. Patent No. 7,154,200
`14· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`·3
`· · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·4
`·5· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`·6
`· · ·AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD and TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`·8
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`·9
`· · · · · · ·INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`10
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`11
`· · · · · · · · · · _______________
`12
`· · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2017-01538
`13· · · · · · ·U.S. Patent No. 7,928,348
`14· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`·3
`· · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·4
`·5· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`·6
`· · ·AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD and TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Petitioners,
`·8
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`·9
`· · · · · · ·INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`10
`· · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`11
`· · · · · · · · · · _______________
`12
`· · · · · · · · Case No. IPR2017-01539
`13· · · · · · ·U.S. Patent No. 7,683,509
`14· · · · · · · · ·_______________
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · · · · · · _______________
`·3
`· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·4
`·5· · · · · · · · · _______________
`·6
`· · ·TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AND DENSO CORPORATION,
`·7
`· · · · · · · · · · · Petitioners,
`·8
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`·9
`· · · · · · · INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`10
`· · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`11
`· · · · · · · · · · ·_______________
`12
`· · · · · · · · ·Case No. IPR2017-01497
`13· · · · · · · U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`14· · · · · · · · · _______________
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`·1
`·2
`·3
`·4
`·5
`·6
`·7
`·8
`·9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14· · · · · · Telephonic Hearing before the Patent Trial and
`15· ·Appeal Board, beginning at 11:31 a.m., and ending at
`16· ·12:04 p.m., on Monday, May 14, 2018, before SUSAN H.
`17· ·CAIOPOULOS, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 8122.
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`·2
`·3· · · · Before JOHN A. HUDALLA, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
`· · · · · AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges
`·4
`·5· ·For Petitioner Aisin Seiki:
`·6· · · · OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`· · · · · BY:· ROBERT C. MATTSON, ESQ.
`·7· · · · 1940 Duke Street
`· · · · · Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`·8· · · · (703) 412-6466
`· · · · · rmattson@oblon.com
`·9
`10· ·For Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC:
`11· · · · KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`· · · · · BY:· TED M. CANNON, ESQ.
`12· · · · BY:· BRENTON R. BABCOCK, ESQ.
`· · · · · 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`13· · · · Irvine, California 92614
`· · · · · (949) 760-0404
`14· · · · ted.cannon@knobbe.com
`· · · · · brent.babcock@knobbe.com
`15
`16· · · · MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC
`· · · · · BY:· BRAD M. SCHELLER, ESQ.
`17· · · · Chrysler Center
`· · · · · 666 Third Avenue
`18· · · · New York, NY· 10017
`· · · · · (212) 692-6761
`19· · · · BMScheller@mintz.com
`20
`· · ·For Petitioner Denso Corporation:
`21
`· · · · · DLA PIPER, LLP
`22· · · · BY:· GIANNI MINUTOLI, ESQ.
`· · · · · One Fountain Square
`23· · · · 11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`· · · · · Reston, Virginia 20190-5602
`24· · · · (703) 773-4045
`· · · · · gianni.minutoli@dlapiper.com
`25
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`·1· ·APPEARANCES (continued):
`·2
`·3· ·For Petitioner Toyota Motor Corporation:
`·4· · · · FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`· · · · · BY:· JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
`·5· · · · BY:· JAMES R. BARNEY, ESQ.
`· · · · · BY:· DAVID C. REESE, ESQ.
`·6· · · · 901 New York Avenue, NW
`· · · · · Washington, DC 20001-4413
`·7· · · · joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`· · · · · james.barney@finnegan.com
`·8· · · · david.reese@finnegan.com
`·9· · · · FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`· · · · · BY:· ALYSSA J. HOLTSLANDER, ESQ.
`10· · · · Two Freedom Square
`· · · · · 11955 Freedom Drive
`11· · · · Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
`· · · · · alyssa.holtslander@finnegan.com
`12
`13· ·For Petitioner Honda:
`14· · · · STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`· · · · · BY:· JAY NUTTALL, ESQ.
`15· · · · 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
`· · · · · Chicago, Illinois 60603
`16· · · · (312) 577 1260
`· · · · · jnuttall@steptoe.com
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 8
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·Monday, May 14, 2018
`·2· · · · · · · · · ·11:31 a.m. - 12:04 p.m.
`·3
`·4· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Good afternoon.· This is a
`·5· ·conference call on IPR2017-1497, 1537, 1538, and 1539.
`·6· · · · · · This is Judge Hudalla.· I have on the line with
`·7· ·me Judges Droesch and Wieker.
`·8· · · · · · Who do we have on the line today from
`·9· ·Petitioner?
`10· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· Good afternoon, your Honor.· This
`11· ·is Robert Mattson for Petitioner Aisin Seiki.
`12· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Good afternoon, Mr. Mattson.
`13· · · · · · Anybody else from Petitioner?
`14· · · · · · MR. GOLDBERG:· Good afternoon, you Honor.· This
`15· ·is Joshua Goldberg for the Toyota petitioners.· And I
`16· ·also have on the line with me James Barney, David Reese,
`17· ·and Alyssa Holtslander.
`18· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Good afternoon.· Is one
`19· ·of you going to speak on behalf of Petitioner in this
`20· ·case, or how are we going to go about this today?
`21· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· This is Robert Mattson, your
`22· ·Honor.· I'll take the lead on the petitioner's side.
`23· ·And if there are some differences -- I believe there's a
`24· ·fourth petition only involving Toyota -- then
`25· ·Mr. Goldberg will help out.
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 9
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· That sounds fine.· Thank you.
`·2· · · · · · MR. MINUTOLI:· Excuse me, your Honor.· Gianni
`·3· ·Minutoli for Denso is on the line also.
`·4· · · · · · MR. NUTTALL:· And your Honor, Jay Nuttall for
`·5· ·Honda is also on the line.
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· So I assume that's okay,
`·7· ·for Mr. Mattson to speak on behalf of all of you,
`·8· ·then?
`·9· · · · · · MR. NUTTALL:· Yes, your Honor.
`10· · · · · · MR. MINUTOLI:· Yes, sir.
`11· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Great.
`12· · · · · · For Patent Owner, who do we have on the line
`13· ·today?
`14· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Good afternoon, your Honor.· This
`15· ·is Ted Cannon of Knobbe Martens for Intellectual
`16· ·Ventures.
`17· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Good afternoon, Mr. Cannon.
`18· · · · · · Okay.· Do we have a court reporter on the line
`19· ·for any parties?
`20· · · · · · MR. BABCOCK:· Your Honor, this is --
`21· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Sorry, we do have -- we have some
`22· ·additional attorneys for Intellectual Ventures on the
`23· ·line.· I'll let them introduce themselves.· I will be
`24· ·the one speaking, however.· This is Ted Cannon again.
`25· ·And there is a court reporter on the line as well.
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 10
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Just before we move on
`·2· ·to the other attorneys, is it your court reporter,
`·3· ·Mr. Cannon?
`·4· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Yes.
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· If you could please file
`·6· ·a transcript of this call when it's available, we'd
`·7· ·appreciate it.
`·8· · · · · · And with that, if the other attorneys could
`·9· ·identify themselves for IV, please.
`10· · · · · · MR. BABCOCK:· Yes, your Honor.· This is Brent
`11· ·Babcock, also with Knobbe Martens.
`12· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.
`13· · · · · · MR. SCHELLER:· Your Honor, Brad Scheller with
`14· ·Mintz Levin.
`15· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· And is that all for Patent
`16· ·Owner?
`17· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Yes.
`18· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Thank you all.
`19· · · · · · I guess we're here today again to talk about
`20· ·the SAS issue and our recent order, where we instituted
`21· ·all grounds -- claims and grounds that weren't
`22· ·instituted in the first go-around.
`23· · · · · · We have four cases to consider here.· And I
`24· ·don't know if there's any sort of agreement amongst the
`25· ·four cases, that we could talk about them as a group.
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 11
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · · · · · But maybe Mr. Mattson, if you could let us know
`·2· ·how you envision proceeding here.
`·3· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· Certainly, your Honor.
`·4· · · · · · At the highest level the petitioners have no
`·5· ·interest in pursuing any of the grounds that were more
`·6· ·recently instituted and originally not instituted. I
`·7· ·guess the problem is how to achieve that with the tools
`·8· ·available at the board.· We've put forward several
`·9· ·proposals.
`10· · · · · · And the issue with adverse judgment is that
`11· ·it's not ground specific, it's only -- at least in the
`12· ·examples in the rules, it's only covering each claim.
`13· ·So we've come up with a couple proposals.
`14· · · · · · The first would just be to stipulate -- and
`15· ·this is the simplest, just to stipulate that petitioners
`16· ·won't contest any of the reasons -- any of the panel's
`17· ·reasons for not instituting IPR, and, therefore, the
`18· ·final written decision, which is to include a finding of
`19· ·no unpatentability for those grounds.
`20· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· And what would be -- you
`21· ·have another proposal as well?
`22· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· Well, this is -- yes.· This is a
`23· ·little more complicated.· But we would have a partial
`24· ·settlement agreement for those grounds.· And then if
`25· ·there were any estoppel issues that Patent Owner was
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 12
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·concerned about, we would just include in the settlement
`·2· ·agreement that petitioners would not pursue any of the
`·3· ·grounds at issue here in future litigation, just as
`·4· ·though there were estoppel.· So essentially it would be
`·5· ·a covenant in addition to a settlement.
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Just as a quick comment
`·7· ·as to the first idea, which is to stipulate.· You know,
`·8· ·certainly that's something, you know, we appreciate and
`·9· ·think that could be workable.· However, ultimately we
`10· ·still have to make a decision at the final written
`11· ·decision stage.
`12· · · · · · So, you know, the issue there -- and I think
`13· ·maybe you're realizing that -- is that we can't
`14· ·guarantee the same result in the final written decision
`15· ·that we reached in the institution decision.
`16· · · · · · Is that -- I assume that came up in your
`17· ·conversations, Mr. Mattson?
`18· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· It has.· Although being on the
`19· ·other side, I've also been involved in cases where the
`20· ·patent owner doesn't respond at all, and the panel just
`21· ·found that the patent owner hadn't responded to any of
`22· ·the reasons for instituting, and therefore the same
`23· ·rationale would apply to the final written decision.
`24· · · · · · So we were thinking that type of scenario would
`25· ·apply, where we -- if petitioners do nothing to rebut
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 13
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·their reasons for no institution, then that would just
`·2· ·carry forward into the final written decision.
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Well, certainly that's the
`·4· ·likelihood, Mr. Mattson.· I'm just saying that, you
`·5· ·know, we are still charged to look at the merits and the
`·6· ·preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.· And, you know,
`·7· ·while that might be a likely result, we certainly can't
`·8· ·guarantee it as part of any kind of solution that we put
`·9· ·forth today.· I just want to make sure that that's clear
`10· ·to all the parties.
`11· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· Yes, I understand, your Honor.
`12· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Well, those are some
`13· ·creative solutions.· Maybe if you'd like to respond to
`14· ·that, Mr. Cannon, about how IV feels about that.
`15· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Yes, your Honor.· And I think that
`16· ·the point that you brought up is really the issue that
`17· ·is the sticking point.
`18· · · · · · If IV could get a guaranteed result that would
`19· ·have essentially an adverse judgment, and I'll use that
`20· ·term loosely, but essentially a judgment in IV's favor
`21· ·on the grounds that were not instituted, and that it
`22· ·would be in the final written decision, such that there
`23· ·is estoppel on those grounds, then IV would be willing
`24· ·to consent to that.
`25· · · · · · The issue that your Honor brought up is really
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 14
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·the sticking point.· We've, you know, looked into that.
`·2· ·We don't think there's really a -- I think it's really
`·3· ·up in the air what the results of such an agreement
`·4· ·would be.· And we think that it would, in fact, leave
`·5· ·open the possibility that the judgment would not be the
`·6· ·same as what was in the institution decision.
`·7· · · · · · And so we are not comfortable at this stage
`·8· ·with stipulating to such a result without being able to
`·9· ·know that we're going to get a final written decision
`10· ·that upholds the original decision and that has estoppel
`11· ·effects.
`12· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· How does IV feel about the idea
`13· ·of the partial settlement with basically a covenant not
`14· ·to pursue the same claims or grounds going forward?
`15· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Well, I think bottom line what we
`16· ·want is a -- whatever the result is, we want there to be
`17· ·an estoppel effect with judgment in IV's favor on the
`18· ·noninstituted grounds with estoppel.
`19· · · · · · If the settlement agreement could be structured
`20· ·so that there was such an effect, and that it would be
`21· ·something the board would abide by, then I think we'd be
`22· ·okay with that.· But we're not sure that that would
`23· ·actually achieve that result.
`24· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· So you haven't really
`25· ·discussed the partial settlement idea to any great
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 15
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`·1· ·extent, it sounds like?
`·2· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· We discussed generally a
`·3· ·stipulations idea.· And then we put forward petitioners
`·4· ·agreeing to an adverse judgment.· A partial settlement
`·5· ·is not something we've discussed in any detail.
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Well, my colleagues have
`·7· ·reminded me, and I think this is a good point.· You
`·8· ·know, the estoppel effect is something that we can't,
`·9· ·obviously -- you know, it's the next tribunal that has
`10· ·the issue of estoppel.· It's not anything that we can
`11· ·guarantee, per se.· And I understand you're trying to
`12· ·get it under our rules that, you know, give you the
`13· ·ability to have estoppel.
`14· · · · · · So I definitely appreciate the parties trying
`15· ·to come up with creative solutions here.· We're
`16· ·obviously in the cracks of our authority and what we can
`17· ·do here.
`18· · · · · · Now, as far as the individual cases and
`19· ·whether -- you know, if such a measure such as a
`20· ·stipulation, adverse judgment, partial settlement was
`21· ·not available, what -- I guess I'll go back to you,
`22· ·Mr. Cannon.· What would IV be doing at that point?
`23· ·Because it sounds like, from the petitioner perspective,
`24· ·they're not going to do much here.
`25· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· So assuming that none of those
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 16
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·work where we have a guarantee of estoppel, IV's
`·2· ·position is that it would want to have supplemental PORs
`·3· ·and be able to fully brief the issues and have
`·4· ·supplemental depositions in order to be able to fully
`·5· ·litigate the issues to seek to obtain a final written
`·6· ·decision in IV's favor with estoppel effects.
`·7· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Mr. Cannon, I just had a
`·8· ·call with your colleague, Mr. Scheller, and we were
`·9· ·talking about the need for depositions.· I mean, it's
`10· ·great to talk about them in theory.· But has IV looked
`11· ·at whether or not they would, indeed, be asking for them
`12· ·in these cases, or is it just a theoretical thing at
`13· ·this point?
`14· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Well, I think it's more than
`15· ·theoretical.· I think our inclination would be to ask
`16· ·for depositions.
`17· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.
`18· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· We haven't made a final decision,
`19· ·but I think that we're leaning in that direction.
`20· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Well, I'm sure
`21· ·Mr. Scheller probably told you between calls, but we
`22· ·imposed a requirement on IV in the last call to make
`23· ·them tell us, within the next two days, whether or not
`24· ·such depositions would go forward.· And depending on
`25· ·what we do here, I think we might actually try to do
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 17
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`·1· ·something like that as well.
`·2· · · · · · However, I think we're probably going to have
`·3· ·to talk amongst ourselves here, just to see if we could
`·4· ·maybe go with one of these better solutions, which is to
`·5· ·stipulate or adverse judgment or partial settlement.
`·6· · · · · · So before we take a moment just to get offline
`·7· ·here and discuss it, is there anything else that you'd
`·8· ·like to say at this point, Mr. Mattson?
`·9· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· Not at this time, your Honor.
`10· ·Thank you.
`11· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· And Mr. Cannon?
`12· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· I'm not sure that it needs to be
`13· ·right now.· I do understand from your call earlier with
`14· ·Mr. Scheller that there was also some discussion on
`15· ·scheduling.· If there is a supplemental patent owner
`16· ·response, if you get to that issue, we would like to put
`17· ·into the record sort of our ideas on that.
`18· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Well, give us a moment.
`19· ·We'll go off line here.· And we'll come back after we
`20· ·discuss this.· Okay?· Thank you, and please hold the
`21· ·line.
`22· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Okay.
`23· · · · · · (Recess.)
`24· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· We're back on the
`25· ·record.· This is Judge Hudalla again, with Judges
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 18
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`·1· ·Droesch and Wieker.
`·2· · · · · · We've discussed the matter amongst ourselves.
`·3· ·We certainly appreciate the parties coming up with
`·4· ·creative solutions.· It's great to work through every
`·5· ·permutation of these SAS issues.· And it seems like you
`·6· ·reach a new one every time.
`·7· · · · · · We'd like to, as a panel, look at our options
`·8· ·on the idea of the partial adverse judgment, slash,
`·9· ·partial settlement idea.· So we're going to take your
`10· ·idea under advisement and kind of do our homework on
`11· ·that, just to see if that's a possibility that we're
`12· ·comfortable with.
`13· · · · · · But in the meantime we did discuss, Mr. Cannon,
`14· ·about the idea that you might want to supplement the
`15· ·record for a patent owner response or take supplemental
`16· ·depositions.
`17· · · · · · And just as in the earlier call we had with
`18· ·Mr. Scheller, your colleague, we would like to know
`19· ·within 48 hours from you, via an e-mail to the trials
`20· ·mailbox, whether or not IV, if given the opportunity to
`21· ·file a supplemental patent owner response, would seek
`22· ·expert -- to cross-examine the expert of Petitioner.
`23· · · · · · So Mr. Cannon, regardless of what we're doing
`24· ·on the settlement front, if you could find that out in
`25· ·consultation with your client, we would appreciate that.
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 19
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`·1· ·So could you handle that, Mr. Cannon?
`·2· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Yes, we can do that.
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Other than that, we will
`·4· ·look into the idea of the partial adverse judgment.
`·5· ·Hopefully that would give IV the -- you know, it would
`·6· ·allay their concerns regarding the estoppel issue.· And
`·7· ·other than that, I guess that's all we have at this
`·8· ·time.
`·9· · · · · · Do you have anything else, Mr. Mattson, for the
`10· ·petitioner?
`11· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· Yes, your Honor, just briefly on
`12· ·the issue of adverse judgment.
`13· · · · · · I think, as you realize, the concern is that
`14· ·the rules don't provide for adverse judgment just on a
`15· ·grounds, because they're written from the perspective of
`16· ·the patent owner requesting adverse judgment on a
`17· ·claim-by-claim basis.
`18· · · · · · But I think if we go that route -- and we need
`19· ·to also do our homework on this possibility and the
`20· ·potential repercussions.· I think for us to feel more
`21· ·comfortable there would at least have to be a waiver of
`22· ·the rules as they're written, just to allow for a
`23· ·ground-by-ground adverse judgment.
`24· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.
`25· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· And I'm improvising right now. I
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 20
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·haven't really thought this through, and I'm sure my
`·2· ·colleagues on the phone haven't either.
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Right.· Well, you know, maybe
`·4· ·if we get to that point, maybe we'll ask for some
`·5· ·briefings from the parties on that issue, you know,
`·6· ·about our ability to actually implement that sort of
`·7· ·thing with or without a waiver of the rules.
`·8· · · · · · But again, we might -- we'd like to at least
`·9· ·have our opportunity it look at it ourselves over the
`10· ·next couple of days before we get to that point.
`11· · · · · · But I'll certainly keep you in mind,
`12· ·Mr. Mattson, and your concerns there.· Because it does
`13· ·sound like the kind of issue that might be good for a
`14· ·briefing from the parties.
`15· · · · · · I do want to ask Mr. Cannon, if we were to go
`16· ·the route of providing a supplemental patent owner
`17· ·response, about how many pages and how long would you be
`18· ·looking to do?· Or maybe you don't have any idea about
`19· ·that at this moment.
`20· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· We do have some ideas on that.
`21· · · · · · With respect to timing, our thought was this is
`22· ·really a discretionary thing for the board.· And so we
`23· ·weren't planning to ask for a specific amount of time.
`24· ·We just wanted to, you know, sort of give some
`25· ·considerations that we think are relevant.
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 21
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· · · · · · One being we think that the primary
`·2· ·consideration should be a due process concern and APA
`·3· ·rights, and just making sure that IV has enough time to
`·4· ·do the things that are necessary, take the depositions,
`·5· ·talk with its experts, get supplemental declarations
`·6· ·ready, and things like that.
`·7· · · · · · And so we're willing to put it up to the
`·8· ·board's discretion, just with the caveat that we do
`·9· ·think that longer, closer to the normal three months, is
`10· ·better than shorter.· But we do recognize the board has
`11· ·some discretion on that issue and would prefer to not go
`12· ·the full three months, necessarily, in these cases.
`13· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· Well, in the previous
`14· ·call Mr. Scheller had said at one point he could do it
`15· ·in six weeks.· Not that we would give you that long, but
`16· ·is that something that's doable?
`17· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Well --
`18· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· I mean, there is testimony?
`19· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Right.· Well, we're dealing with
`20· ·four different cases.· And actually, to be clear, Knobbe
`21· ·is dealing with two of them, and Mintz Levin is dealing
`22· ·with two others.· So on these particular petitioners
`23· ·it's a little bit more complicated, in that there are
`24· ·four cases.
`25· · · · · · I think that six weeks is kind of on the
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 22
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·borderline.· I think that more than that would be
`·2· ·better.· But if pushed to do that, I think we would,
`·3· ·obviously, give it our very best shot to do it within
`·4· ·the six weeks.
`·5· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Well, as I'm sure you're aware,
`·6· ·I mean, we are under the constraint of the 12-month
`·7· ·deadline here, and we're trying to make sure these cases
`·8· ·get done in the normal 12-month course.· So while we, of
`·9· ·course, would love to have more time than less, we still
`10· ·have to live in that world.· So --
`11· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· Can I make one comment on that?
`12· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Sure.
`13· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· We agree with -- and we understand
`14· ·the board's, sort of, impetus to try to stay within the
`15· ·12 months.
`16· · · · · · We think that the primary concern here should
`17· ·be due process and APA rights.· And to the extent that
`18· ·complying with due process and the APA is necessary to
`19· ·extend, we think that's a very clear case where there's
`20· ·good cause, to have a short extension of the 12-month
`21· ·period.
`22· · · · · · And, you know, obviously the SAS case came out
`23· ·and surprised everybody.· Not really anybody's fault
`24· ·that it came out at the time that it did.· But we think
`25· ·that the primary concern really ought to be the due
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 23
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·process and not necessarily the 12-month date, because
`·2· ·there is the ability to extend for good cause.
`·3· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· I understand your
`·4· ·position, Mr. Cannon.
`·5· · · · · · As far as the number of pages that might be
`·6· ·required for a supplemental patent owner response, I
`·7· ·guess we have four different cases, so it's kind of hard
`·8· ·to say at this point.· But is that sort of thing -- do
`·9· ·you have a handle on that at this time?
`10· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· We have thought about that.· And
`11· ·we thought that for each one it would be kind of a
`12· ·complicated question.
`13· · · · · · And so our proposal, to kind of avoid
`14· ·unnecessary disputes, would be to -- we can resubmit the
`15· ·POR with the same 14,000-word limit.· We would agree not
`16· ·to add any arguments on the originally instituted
`17· ·grounds.· We might cut back on some of those arguments
`18· ·in order to make room for the new arguments.· But we
`19· ·would abide by the total 14,000-word limit.
`20· · · · · · And we thought that would be an approach that
`21· ·would kind of avoid disputes about how many words for
`22· ·this one, how many words for that one, and just kind of
`23· ·stick to the same 14,000 words for a POR.
`24· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.· And if we were to stick
`25· ·to that and we went with the approach of the
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 24
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.Toyota Motor Corp., et al. vs.
`
`Telephonic HearingTelephonic Hearing
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.Intellectual Ventures II, LLC.
`·1· ·supplemental brief, do you have any sense about how many
`·2· ·pages you might need?
`·3· · · · · · MR. CANNON:· That is -- yeah, we have not
`·4· ·considered that on a case-by-case basis, because it
`·5· ·probably would be different for each case.
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE HUDALLA:· Okay.
`·7· · · · · · Mr. Mattson, how would you like to respond to
`·8· ·that?
`·9· · · · · · MR. MATTSON:· Well, I think the resubmission of
`10· ·patent owner responses would just place a huge burden on
`11· ·this entire process.
`12· · · · · · At least for the 1537, 1539, and 1538 IPRs
`13· ·where Aisin Seiki is one of the petitioners, there is
`14· ·only one additional ground that comes into play now
`15· ·after SAS.· In all of those grounds there's only a total
`16· ·of three references.· And all three of those references
`17· ·have already been addressed in the patent owner
`18· ·response.
`19· · · · · · So we understand that the grounds are
`20· ·different, but the references are the same.· Our experts
`21· ·have alrea
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
