`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