·1
`
`·2· · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3· · · ------------------------------------------X
`· · · · TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
`·4· · · CO., LTD.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PETITIONER,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · -against-· · · Case No:
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR 2017-01861
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent 7,265,450
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PATENT OWNER.
`· · · · ------------------------------------------X
`11
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · December 19, 2017
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · · 10:32 A.M.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · · · 90 Broad Street
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · · New York, New York 10004
`
`16
`
`17· · · B E F O R E:
`
`18· · · (Present Via Teleconference)
`
`19· · · · · Judge Jennifer Chagnon
`
`20· · · · · Judge Justin Arves
`
`21· · · · · Judge Michael Fitzpatrick
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSMC v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
` IPR2017-01843
`TSMC 1227
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · · A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`·3· · · STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
`· · · · · · · · · Attorneys for TSMC Matters 1861
`·4· · · · · · · · and 1862
`· · · · · · · · · 1100 New York Avenue, NW
`·5· · · · · · · · Washington, DC 20005
`· · · · · · · · · BY:· LORI GORDON, ESQ.
`·6· · · · · · · · lgordon@skgf.com
`· · · · · · · · · (Present Via Teleconference)
`·7
`
`·8
`· · · · WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR, LLP
`·9· · · · · · · · Attorneys for TSMC 4 other Matters
`· · · · · · · · · 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`10· · · · · · · · Washington, D.C. 20006
`· · · · · · · · · BY:· DAVID CAVANAUGH, ESQ.
`11· · · · · · · · David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`· · · · · · · · · (Present Via Teleconference)
`12
`
`13
`· · · · WOLF GREENFIELD
`14· · · · · · · · Attorneys for Patent Owner
`· · · · · · · · · 600 Atlantic Avenue
`15· · · · · · · · Boston, Ma.· 02210
`· · · · · · · · · BY:· GERALD B. HRYCYSZYN, ESQ.
`16· · · · · · · · gerald.hrycyszyn@wolfgreenfield.com
`· · · · · · · · · 617.646.8313
`17· · · · · · · · (Present Via Teleconference)
`
`18
`
`19· · · ALSO PRESENT:
`
`20· · · Robert X. Shaw, CSR
`· · · · · · Stenographer
`21· · · New York, New York
`· · · · (Present Via Teleconference)
`22
`
`23
`· · · · · · · · · *· · · · ·*· · · · · *
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· On the record for
`
`·3· · · · · ·IPR 2017, 1841, '42, '43, '44 and IPR
`
`·4· · · · · ·2017 1861 and 1862.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · And as I mentioned, I am Judge
`
`·6· · · · · ·Chagnon and I have also have Judges
`
`·7· · · · · ·Arves and Fitzpatrick on the line with
`
`·8· · · · · ·today.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · Just to double-check, do we have
`
`10· · · · · ·counsel for the Petitioner in the 1841
`
`11· · · · · ·series of cases?
`
`12· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· Yes.· This is Dave
`
`13· · · · · ·Cavanaugh with Wilmer Hale for TSMC.
`
`14· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Great.
`
`15· · · · · · · · And I heard Ms. Gordon on the line
`
`16· · · · · ·for the 1861 series of cases for the
`
`17· · · · · ·Petitioner.
`
`18· · · · · · · · Do we have counsel for the Patent
`
`19· · · · · ·Owner on the line?
`
`20· · · · · · · · MR. HRYCYSZYN:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`21· · · · · · · · Gerry Hrycyszyn from Wolf
`
`22· · · · · ·Greenfield and Rich Giunta from Wolf
`
`23· · · · · ·Greenfield for the Patent Owner.
`
`24· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Thank you,
`
`25· · · · · ·everyone.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · · And thank you for your flexibility
`
`·3· · · · · ·for scheduling the call together, and
`
`·4· · · · · ·the overlap of issues.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · I know that it is hard at this time
`
`·6· · · · · ·of year to coordinate schedules with
`
`·7· · · · · ·everybody.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · Since we set this call up initially
`
`·9· · · · · ·at the request of Mr. Cavanaugh, why
`
`10· · · · · ·don't we hear from you first, on what
`
`11· · · · · ·you are seeking today.
`
`12· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· Certainly.
`
`13· · · · · · · · Although counsel Lori Gordon and I
`
`14· · · · · ·spoke and in view of -- we thought that
`
`15· · · · · ·it might be useful or appropriate if she
`
`16· · · · · ·went first.· I am happy to go first.
`
`17· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· If you guys
`
`18· · · · · ·coordinated, it is fine with us.
`
`19· · · · · · · · Ms. Gordon.
`
`20· · · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· Thank you, Judge
`
`21· · · · · ·Chagnon.
`
`22· · · · · · · · We are seeking authorization to
`
`23· · · · · ·file a reply to Patent Owner's
`
`24· · · · · ·preliminary response filed in the two
`
`25· · · · · ·1861 and '62 cases, based on the
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·inconsistent statements that the Patent
`
`·3· · · · · ·Owner has taken in the "PTAB' regarding
`
`·4· · · · · ·claim construction, versus the positions
`
`·5· · · · · ·that were broader that they took in the
`
`·6· · · · · ·District Court, in their infringement
`
`·7· · · · · ·allegations and in the complaint.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · And there are two points that I
`
`·9· · · · · ·would like to address today for the
`
`10· · · · · ·cases, and I can start with the first
`
`11· · · · · ·one, it is --
`
`12· · · · · · · · If that is okay with your Honor. >
`
`13· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Okay.· Basically on
`
`14· · · · · ·the call we would like to focus less on
`
`15· · · · · ·-- and I don't know what your exact
`
`16· · · · · ·points are -- and I do not want to
`
`17· · · · · ·interrupt unnecessarily.
`
`18· · · · · · · · But less of the focus of the, ah,
`
`19· · · · · ·focusing on the substance of the
`
`20· · · · · ·request, what you would argue if we let
`
`21· · · · · ·you file a reply and more um, focused on
`
`22· · · · · ·what is the basis of why we should grant
`
`23· · · · · ·the reply, prior to the institutional
`
`24· · · · · ·position.
`
`25· · · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· Thank you, your Honor.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·Let's start with the first issue, and
`
`·3· · · · · ·the second issue follows in the same
`
`·4· · · · · ·reasoning.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · So, the first issue applies to both
`
`·6· · · · · ·the proceedings, the 1861 and the 1862.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · And the issue is related to the
`
`·8· · · · · ·claim construction of the term, the
`
`·9· · · · · ·first interconnect provided within the
`
`10· · · · · ·first interconnect group, and having
`
`11· · · · · ·convex or concave portions at at least,
`
`12· · · · · ·at least at one of its side surfaces and
`
`13· · · · · ·bottom surfaces.
`
`14· · · · · · · · And TSMC contends that good cause
`
`15· · · · · ·exists, we will reference in this case,
`
`16· · · · · ·because we could not have foreseen that
`
`17· · · · · ·the Patent Owner would take a narrow
`
`18· · · · · ·construction of this term in the "PTAB"
`
`19· · · · · ·than they have in the District Court to
`
`20· · · · · ·show infringement, which is the primary
`
`21· · · · · ·reason we are here today.
`
`22· · · · · · · · But, in addition the position taken
`
`23· · · · · ·by the Patent Owner in the, in their
`
`24· · · · · ·POPR is inconsistent with the explicit
`
`25· · · · · ·language of Claim 1, and the dependent
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·claims 2 and 4, which make it abundantly
`
`·3· · · · · ·clear that their claim construction is
`
`·4· · · · · ·overly narrow.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · So, the basis for our request
`
`·6· · · · · ·related to this issue is the
`
`·7· · · · · ·inconsistencies from the District Court
`
`·8· · · · · ·where they are broadly construing this
`
`·9· · · · · ·term as only requiring convex or concave
`
`10· · · · · ·portions on the bottom, surface of the
`
`11· · · · · ·interconnect; um, whereas in the "PTAB"
`
`12· · · · · ·the Patent Owner is urging the board to
`
`13· · · · · ·construe this term as requiring the
`
`14· · · · · ·convex and concave portions on both the
`
`15· · · · · ·side surfaces and the bottom surfaces.
`
`16· · · · · · · · And again we would point the
`
`17· · · · · ·Board's attention to Claim 2, which
`
`18· · · · · ·makes it clear that Claim 1 cannot be
`
`19· · · · · ·limited to requiring um, both um, the
`
`20· · · · · ·convex, the convex and concave portions
`
`21· · · · · ·on both the side surfaces and the bottom
`
`22· · · · · ·surfaces.
`
`23· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`24· · · · · · · · So, Patent Owner, would you prefer
`
`25· · · · · ·to address the two, Petitioner's
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·arguments together or one at a time?
`
`·3· · · · · · · · I guess the question is would you
`
`·4· · · · · ·rather Mr. Cavanaugh speak before you or
`
`·5· · · · · ·would you rather go ahead now?
`
`·6· · · · · · · · MR. HRYCYSZYN:· The Patent Owner
`
`·7· · · · · ·would like to speak now.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · This is Gerry Hrycyszyn.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · Your Honor, the Patent Owner
`
`10· · · · · ·believes that there is a "gating issue"
`
`11· · · · · ·here on the foreseeability of the
`
`12· · · · · ·claimed interpretation issues that
`
`13· · · · · ·Petitioner raised in the e-mail request,
`
`14· · · · · ·and indeed went into the argument that
`
`15· · · · · ·it appears to want to present to the
`
`16· · · · · ·Board in the reply.
`
`17· · · · · · · · We are certainly prepared to
`
`18· · · · · ·discuss the details of the claim
`
`19· · · · · ·interpretation and why the art issues
`
`20· · · · · ·rely upon, does not disclose those
`
`21· · · · · ·limitations -- as necessary.
`
`22· · · · · · · · However, Patent Owner believes that
`
`23· · · · · ·the claim interpretation issues were
`
`24· · · · · ·entirely foreseeable, and Petitioner
`
`25· · · · · ·therefore cannot show there is a good
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·cause for reply.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · Petitioner had the initial
`
`·4· · · · · ·infringement intentions from the
`
`·5· · · · · ·co-pending litigation at the time it
`
`·6· · · · · ·filed its petitions, and indeed in the
`
`·7· · · · · ·petitions TSMC referred to now, it did
`
`·8· · · · · ·address those contentions, and it had
`
`·9· · · · · ·them as an exhibit, and it addressed
`
`10· · · · · ·some claim interpretation issues with
`
`11· · · · · ·respect to those contentions, with
`
`12· · · · · ·respect to the limitation that TSMC just
`
`13· · · · · ·discussed.
`
`14· · · · · · · · It only addressed convex portions.
`
`15· · · · · · · · Only those two words in that entire
`
`16· · · · · ·limitation, that was recited to the
`
`17· · · · · ·court.
`
`18· · · · · · · · TSMC did not address the rest of
`
`19· · · · · ·that limitation, which is the convex or
`
`20· · · · · ·concave portions at least at one of its
`
`21· · · · · ·side surfaces.
`
`22· · · · · · · · The claim language of the claim
`
`23· · · · · ·requires that they be inside surfaces,
`
`24· · · · · ·and the box -- it is never addressed.
`
`25· · · · · · · · This issue is entirely foreseeable
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·and there is no reason, no good cause to
`
`·3· · · · · ·reply.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Thank you.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · Patent Owner, did I hear you say
`
`·6· · · · · ·that the contentions of the Petitioner
`
`·7· · · · · ·referred to are in the record of, of the
`
`·8· · · · · ·proceedings?
`
`·9· · · · · · · · MR. HRYCYSZYN:· Ah, yes.
`
`10· · · · · · · · With the 1861 and 1862 IPRs, the
`
`11· · · · · ·contentions are part of the record, and
`
`12· · · · · ·were addressed in the petition.
`
`13· · · · · · · · I want to also mention, your Honor,
`
`14· · · · · ·that the argument that was provided by
`
`15· · · · · ·TSMC is a new argument that was not in
`
`16· · · · · ·their petition.
`
`17· · · · · · · · It is not one that should be added
`
`18· · · · · ·to the record at this time.
`
`19· · · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· Your Honor, I would
`
`20· · · · · ·like if I could to address some of the
`
`21· · · · · ·points that Mr. Hrycyszyn just raised,
`
`22· · · · · ·because I think he is mischaracterizing
`
`23· · · · · ·the infringement contentions that were
`
`24· · · · · ·provided in the petition, and these were
`
`25· · · · · ·um, provided in the petition.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · · And if you look at the infringement
`
`·3· · · · · ·allegations, what is abundantly clear is
`
`·4· · · · · ·that they are only pointing to with blue
`
`·5· · · · · ·arrows, convex portions on the bottom
`
`·6· · · · · ·surface of the interconnect, which is
`
`·7· · · · · ·consistent with the position on claim
`
`·8· · · · · ·construction that TSMC took in the
`
`·9· · · · · ·position in the petition.
`
`10· · · · · · · · And it is consistent with Claim 2,
`
`11· · · · · ·which depends from Claim 1, which makes
`
`12· · · · · ·it clear that the interconnect groove
`
`13· · · · · ·has concave or concave portions only on
`
`14· · · · · ·the bottom surface.
`
`15· · · · · · · · So Claim 1 cannot be narrowly
`
`16· · · · · ·construed in the way that Patent Owner
`
`17· · · · · ·urges the board to do.
`
`18· · · · · · · · Their positions in their POPR are
`
`19· · · · · ·inconsistent with what they put in the
`
`20· · · · · ·District Court to allege infringement
`
`21· · · · · ·and they should not be permitted to take
`
`22· · · · · ·a broad position to prove infringement
`
`23· · · · · ·and the narrow position in the "PTAB" to
`
`24· · · · · ·avoid the prior art.
`
`25· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· All right.· Thank
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·you.· Mr. Cavanaugh, I know that your
`
`·3· · · · · ·cases are different, and in your e-mail
`
`·4· · · · · ·you addressed different particular claim
`
`·5· · · · · ·limitations.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · But did you have anything to add or
`
`·7· · · · · ·any different arguments about why you
`
`·8· · · · · ·allege that good cause -- reply in your
`
`·9· · · · · ·four cases?
`
`10· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· Yes.· I am not
`
`11· · · · · ·going to get into the particular
`
`12· · · · · ·limitations.
`
`13· · · · · · · · But I think that -- I would like to
`
`14· · · · · ·make three points.
`
`15· · · · · · · · First, as the board is well aware
`
`16· · · · · ·um, very often IPRs are filed in the
`
`17· · · · · ·context of litigation, and that there
`
`18· · · · · ·is, that there are a myriad of issues
`
`19· · · · · ·that are in play um, with regard to
`
`20· · · · · ·claim construction.
`
`21· · · · · · · · And, you know, what I would
`
`22· · · · · ·encourage the Board to engage in claim
`
`23· · · · · ·construction in the context of the
`
`24· · · · · ·broadest reasonable construction that it
`
`25· · · · · ·has um, before it or that it is charged
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·with, with developing, but in the
`
`·3· · · · · ·context of the larger um dispute between
`
`·4· · · · · ·the parties.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · You know, the Patent Owner
`
`·6· · · · · ·identified foreseeability as, you know,
`
`·7· · · · · ·anything where, kind of, potentially
`
`·8· · · · · ·foreseeable, that somehow it should have
`
`·9· · · · · ·gone into the petition.
`
`10· · · · · · · · And that can't be the standard for
`
`11· · · · · ·a good cause for reply.
`
`12· · · · · · · · Because otherwise, everything that
`
`13· · · · · ·would be like um, everything would be
`
`14· · · · · ·foreseeable.
`
`15· · · · · · · · So, I think that the core, the core
`
`16· · · · · ·issue is, you know, in the course of
`
`17· · · · · ·getting the claim construction proper --
`
`18· · · · · ·correct, in making that determination
`
`19· · · · · ·um, would the Board benefit from the
`
`20· · · · · ·ability to have four additional pages of
`
`21· · · · · ·briefing on, the -- the construction
`
`22· · · · · ·that are in play in these proceedings,
`
`23· · · · · ·so that the Board can adequately discern
`
`24· · · · · ·what the proper broadest reasonable
`
`25· · · · · ·construction would be.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · · And, the view of the Petitioner is
`
`·3· · · · · ·that there would be benefits to the
`
`·4· · · · · ·Board and benefits to all of the parties
`
`·5· · · · · ·that those, that those four different
`
`·6· · · · · ·pages would go in.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · And it is not a burden to either
`
`·8· · · · · ·party and four pages hopefully is not a
`
`·9· · · · · ·burden to the Board.
`
`10· · · · · · · · The last point that I would like to
`
`11· · · · · ·make regarding these replies, would be,
`
`12· · · · · ·you know, to the extent that there is,
`
`13· · · · · ·you know, that the proper determination
`
`14· · · · · ·of whether or not a reply is warranted
`
`15· · · · · ·would be a showing of good cause, and
`
`16· · · · · ·not something that is in the interest of
`
`17· · · · · ·justice.
`
`18· · · · · · · · I mean, I think good cause is, is
`
`19· · · · · ·the very dispute that is being raised
`
`20· · · · · ·here today, with regard to kind of
`
`21· · · · · ·getting the claim construction correct.
`
`22· · · · · · · · And that to me is, I think relevant
`
`23· · · · · ·to um, what the Petitioners would hope
`
`24· · · · · ·the Board would consider as, as they
`
`25· · · · · ·review these petitions, the patent
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·owner's preliminary response as well as
`
`·3· · · · · ·hopefully the Board -- of the reply.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Mr. Cavanaugh, let
`
`·5· · · · · ·me ask you the same question that I
`
`·6· · · · · ·asked about the 1861 cases.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · In this 1841 series of cases, is --
`
`·8· · · · · ·the Petitioner also submit ah, a
`
`·9· · · · · ·District Court contentions of -- exhibit
`
`10· · · · · ·in those cases?
`
`11· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· We did not, your
`
`12· · · · · ·Honor.
`
`13· · · · · · · · The contentions to the extent that
`
`14· · · · · ·the Board wants to look at them, they
`
`15· · · · · ·are, they are in the 1861, 1862 but we
`
`16· · · · · ·did not put them in the um, the '41 or
`
`17· · · · · ·'44 series.
`
`18· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Okay.· So, the
`
`19· · · · · ·contentions are the same document in
`
`20· · · · · ·both.
`
`21· · · · · · · · It would be the same document in
`
`22· · · · · ·both.· So we have them.
`
`23· · · · · · · · They are just not in the record in
`
`24· · · · · ·the 1841.
`
`25· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· That is correct.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·That is correct, your Honor.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Okay.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· And we would be
`
`·5· · · · · ·happy to put them in, if that would be
`
`·6· · · · · ·um, convenient or desirable for the
`
`·7· · · · · ·Board.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· We will defer on
`
`·9· · · · · ·that question for right now.
`
`10· · · · · · · · But, Patent Owner, do you have
`
`11· · · · · ·anything additional in response to Mr.
`
`12· · · · · ·Cavanaugh's comments?
`
`13· · · · · · · · MR. HRYCYSZYN:· Yes, your Honor.
`
`14· · · · · ·Thank you.
`
`15· · · · · · · · First, Patent Owner wanted to point
`
`16· · · · · ·out that replies are extremely rare in
`
`17· · · · · ·this context.
`
`18· · · · · · · · Based on our research, less than
`
`19· · · · · ·two percent of the cases allow a reply
`
`20· · · · · ·in terms of those that are filed.
`
`21· · · · · · · · So here, you know, the Petitioner
`
`22· · · · · ·seems to be treating these as a matter
`
`23· · · · · ·of right in requesting replies in 6 out
`
`24· · · · · ·of 6 IPRs, that just seems um,
`
`25· · · · · ·extraordinary.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · · Second, the Petitioner is wrong --
`
`·3· · · · · ·the getting back to the 1861 petition,
`
`·4· · · · · ·the infringement contentions do show a
`
`·5· · · · · ·convexity in the side wall.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · The Petitioner ignored that, and
`
`·7· · · · · ·chose to ignore the limitations of the
`
`·8· · · · · ·claim.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · There is no basis for which they
`
`10· · · · · ·should be able to ignore this claim
`
`11· · · · · ·limitation and then come back and try to
`
`12· · · · · ·address them in the reply.· And they had
`
`13· · · · · ·all that information in front of them.
`
`14· · · · · · · · And similarly, in the 1841 series
`
`15· · · · · ·of IPRs, the Petitioner did not even
`
`16· · · · · ·think that the contentions were
`
`17· · · · · ·important or relevant enough to submit
`
`18· · · · · ·as exhibits and address.
`
`19· · · · · · · · If they thought the infringement
`
`20· · · · · ·contentions compelled the construction,
`
`21· · · · · ·they should have argued that in the
`
`22· · · · · ·petition.· They did not.
`
`23· · · · · · · · They ignored those limitations, and
`
`24· · · · · ·now ask to do so in a reply, when they
`
`25· · · · · ·see their deficiencies in the petition.
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · · · · Thank you, your Honor.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· All right.· Thank
`
`·4· · · · · ·you.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· This is Dave
`
`·6· · · · · ·Cavanaugh for the Petitioner.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · And just to, ah, to clarify and
`
`·8· · · · · ·hopefully this is, you know --
`
`·9· · · · · · · · To the extent that it is, you know,
`
`10· · · · · ·which I imagine the Patent Owner is
`
`11· · · · · ·looking at foreseeability that we should
`
`12· · · · · ·have somehow kind of populated the
`
`13· · · · · ·entire record with um, everything that
`
`14· · · · · ·we could, potentially, um, think as
`
`15· · · · · ·relevant.
`
`16· · · · · · · · That is simply not possible, as a
`
`17· · · · · ·part of what um, what we do as
`
`18· · · · · ·Petitioners, and hopefully for the
`
`19· · · · · ·convenience of the Board, like -- they
`
`20· · · · · ·are not suggesting that somehow we
`
`21· · · · · ·should kind of filled the record with a
`
`22· · · · · ·lot of things that potentially could be
`
`23· · · · · ·relevant.
`
`24· · · · · · · · It becomes relevant though when the
`
`25· · · · · ·Patent Owner in their preliminary
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·response articulates the construction
`
`·3· · · · · ·that is inconsistent with it.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · So, that which may be marginally
`
`·5· · · · · ·relevant earlier becomes centrally
`
`·6· · · · · ·relevant to the extent that the Patent
`
`·7· · · · · ·Owner is identifying something that is,
`
`·8· · · · · ·in a construction, that is inconsistent
`
`·9· · · · · ·with a prior document.
`
`10· · · · · · · · And you know, just -- going back to
`
`11· · · · · ·what I was articulating earlier, it is
`
`12· · · · · ·that we believe that it is appropriate
`
`13· · · · · ·for the Board to have that information
`
`14· · · · · ·in front of it, in the course of
`
`15· · · · · ·determining what the DRI is.
`
`16· · · · · · · · And our request is, ah, is -- we
`
`17· · · · · ·recognize the discretionary items for
`
`18· · · · · ·the Board, we believe that cause exists
`
`19· · · · · ·and for the reasons that we had spoken
`
`20· · · · · ·about, that we believe that the Board
`
`21· · · · · ·would benefit from the additional
`
`22· · · · · ·reading.
`
`23· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· All right.· Thank
`
`24· · · · · ·you, everybody.
`
`25· · · · · · · · I think we understand everybody's
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·positions on this.· I will put everybody
`
`·3· · · · · ·on a brief hold to confer briefly with
`
`·4· · · · · ·the Panel and we will be back on line in
`
`·5· · · · · ·a couple of minutes.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · (Whereupon, a short recess was
`
`·7· · · · · ·taken.)
`
`·8· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· All right.· The
`
`·9· · · · · ·Panel is back on the line.
`
`10· · · · · · · · We have conferred and um, in these
`
`11· · · · · ·cases we are going to deny the
`
`12· · · · · ·Petitioner's request to file a reply.
`
`13· · · · · · · · You know, basically, in nearly
`
`14· · · · · ·every single case that we see here,
`
`15· · · · · ·there is a dispute on claim
`
`16· · · · · ·construction.
`
`17· · · · · · · · We understand that the Petitioner's
`
`18· · · · · ·position is that the Patent Owner is
`
`19· · · · · ·taking inconsistent positions, and they
`
`20· · · · · ·are in the District Court.
`
`21· · · · · · · · However, we also understand that it
`
`22· · · · · ·is the Patent Owner's position that they
`
`23· · · · · ·are not taking an inconsistent position.
`
`24· · · · · · · · So we have basically everything
`
`25· · · · · ·that we need in the record um between
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · ·Proceedings
`
`·2· · · · · ·the parties' arguments and the District
`
`·3· · · · · ·Court contentions to review everything
`
`·4· · · · · ·and come to a determination for claim
`
`·5· · · · · ·construction for the DI.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · So, we will follow-up with an order
`
`·7· · · · · ·summarizing the call today, and
`
`·8· · · · · ·confirming that information.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · Did anybody else have any questions
`
`10· · · · · ·about these cases today?
`
`11· · · · · · · · MR. HRYCYSZYN:· No, your Honor.
`
`12· · · · · · · · MS. GORDON:· Nothing from the
`
`13· · · · · ·Petitioner in the 1861 and 1862 cases,
`
`14· · · · · ·your Honor.
`
`15· · · · · · · · MR. CAVANAUGH:· Nor I go anything
`
`16· · · · · ·from us.
`
`17· · · · · · · · MR. HRYCYSZYN:· Patent Owner, your
`
`18· · · · · ·Honor.
`
`19· · · · · · · · JUDGE CHAGNON:· Thank you,
`
`20· · · · · ·everyone, for your time today.· And the
`
`21· · · · · ·call is adjourned.
`
`22· · · · · · · · (Time Noted:· 10:55 a.m.)
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`·1
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`·3· · · STATE OF NEW YORK· · )
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·) ss.
`
`·5· · · COUNTY OF NEW YORK· ·)
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · · · I, ROBERT X. SHAW, CSR, a Notary
`
`·8· · · · · ·Public within and for the State of New
`
`·9· · · · · ·York, do hereby certify:
`
`10· · · · · · · · That the above record is a true
`
`11· · · · · ·record of the proceedings taken on
`
`12· · · · · ·December 19, 2017.
`
`13· · · · · · · · I further certify that I am not
`
`14· · · · · ·related to any of the parties to this
`
`15· · · · · ·action by blood or marriage; and that I
`
`16· · · · · ·am in no way interested in the outcome
`
`17· · · · · ·of this matter.
`
`18· · · · · · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
`
`19· · · · · ·set my hand this 20th day of December,
`
`20· · · · · ·2017.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· · · · · · · · · · · ·__________________________
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·ROBERT X. SHAW, CSR
`
`25
`
`

`

`Proceedings
`
`December 19, 2017
`
`art
`
`8:19 11:24
`
`articulates
`
`19:2
`
`articulating 19:11
`attention 7:17
`
`
`
`23
`
`16:3,8 18:
`20:8
`
`3 19:23
`
`charged 12
`chose
`17:7
`
`:25
`
`claim 5:4
`6:8,25 7:3,
`’7,’8
`:’
`
`
`
`22 ”:
`’
`
`:4,?
`2
`'4:2'
`°
`
`
`
`I 1
`
`2
`
`:7
`
`18 11:3,12
`9:5
`
`claimed 8:
`
`claims
`
`7:2
`
`clarify 18
`clear 7:3,
`
`co-pending
`comments
`
`compelled
`
`1
`
`6:12
`
`17:20
`
`5:7
`
`
`
`complaint
`6:
`concave
`11 "7:9,14,
`20 9:20 11:13
`confer
`20:
`
`3 2
`
`conferred
`
`consistent
`
`0:10
`
`11:7,10
`
`construction
`18 7:3 11:
`
`
`
`5:4 6:8,
`8 12:20,
`23,24 13:17,21,25
`
`
`‘
`4:21
`‘7:20 ‘
`20:16
`
` 9:2,8
`
`construe
`
`7:
`
`13
`
`11:16
`
`avoid 11:24
`
`12:15
`
`aware
`
`back 17:3,11 19:10
`20:4,9
`Based
`16:18
`
`basically 5:13 20:13,
`24
`
`basis
`
`5:22 7:5 17:9
`
`believes
`benefit
`
`8:10,22
`13:19 19:21
`
`
`
`benefits
`blue
`11:4
`
`14:3,4
`
`board 7:12 8:16 11:17
`
`
`
`’2:15,22 13:19,23
`14:4,9,24 15:3,14
`’6:7 18:19 19:13,18,
`20
`
`Board's
`
`7:17
`
`bottom 6:13 7:10,15,
`21 11:5,14
`box
`9:24
`
` 1 1
`
`
`6:25 7:'8
`
`
`
`
`
`1862
`
`6:6 '0:
`
`7:2,17 11:10
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`16:23,24
`
` A
`
`ability 13:20
`
`abundantly 7:2 11:3
`add
`12:6
`
`15:7,24
`1841
`6:6 '0:
`1861
`15 17:3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I I 2
` B
` 2
`
`20:20
`
`added
`
`10:17
`
`addition 6:22
`
`13:20
`additional
`
`'6:’1 19:21
`
`5:9 7:25 9:8,
`address
`‘8 ‘0:20 17:12,18
`
`
`
`
`
`addressed 9:9,14,24
`'0:'2 12:4
`
`adequately
`ahead
`8:5
`
`13:23
`
`allegations
`
`5:7 11:3
`
`allege
`
`11:20 12:8
`
`appears
`
`8:15
`
`applies
`
`6:5
`
`argue
`
`5:20
`
`argued 17:21
`
`argument
`15
`
`8:‘4 ‘0:
`
`
`
`
`8:2
`arguments
`arrows
`11:5
`
`all
`
`5:14
`
`
`
`construed
`
`construing
`contends
`
`6:
`
`
`
`7:8
`
`14
`
`contentions
`
`9:8,11
`’0:6,11,23 15:9,13,
`
`’9 ’7:4,16,20
`context
`12
`'6:'7
`
`
`
`:17,23
`
`
`
`
`convenience
`
`18:19
`
`convenient
`
`16:6
`
`convex
`
`6:1
`
`1 7:9,14,20
`9:14,19 11:5
`
` 17:5
`
`convexity
`core
`13:15
`
`correct
`15:25 16:2
`
`13
`
`:18 14:21
`
`5 6
`
`20:
`
`couple
`5:6
`:19 7:7
`court
`9:17 11:20 15:9
`
`briefing
`
`briefly
`broad
`
`11:22
`
`13:21
`
`20:3
`
`broader
`
`5:5
`
`broadest
`
`12:24 13:24
`
`broadly
`burden
`
`7:8
`
`14:7,9
`
` C c
`
`case
`
`6:15 20:14
`
`
`
`5:10 12:3,9
`cases
`15:6,7,10 16:19
`20:11
`
`8:4 12:2,10
`Cavanaugh
`15:4,11,25 16:4
`18:5,6
`
`Cavanaugh's
`
`16:12
`
`centrally 19:5
`CHAGNON
`5:13 7:23
`
`
`
`10:4 11:25 15:4,18
`
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`23
`
`

`

`Proceedings
`
`December 19, 2017
`
`24
`
` F
`
`inconsistent
`
`’1:’9 19:3,8 20:19,
`
`23
`
`5:2 6:24
`
`
`
`information 17:13
`19:13
`
`5:6 6:20
`infringement
`9:4 10:23 11:2,20,22
`17:4,19
`initial
`
`9:3
`
`focusing 5:19
`foreseeabilit
`
`13:6 18:11
`
`8:11
`
`inside
`
`9:23
`
`institutional
`
`5:23
`
`intentions
`
`interconnect
`
`9:4
`6:
`
`7:11 11:6,12
`interest
`14:16
`
`interpretation
`19,23 9:10
`
`9,10
`
` :12,
`
`5:17
`interrupt
`IPRS
`10:10 12:16
`16:24 17:15
`
`issue 6:2,3,5,7 7:6
`8:10 9:25 13:16
`
`8:12,19,23
`issues
`9:10 12:18
`
`
`
`
`
`foreseeable
`
`8:24 9:25
`
`13:8,14
`foreseen 6:16
`
`front
`
`17:13 19:14
`
` G
`
`gating 8:10
`
`Gerry
`
`8:8
`
`6:14 8:25 10:2
`good
`12:8 13:11 14:15,18
`GORDON
`5:25 10:19
`
`
`
`
`
`file
`
`filed
`
`filled
`
`17:25
`
`5:21 20:12
`
`9:6 12:16 16:20
`
`
`
`18:21
`
`5:14,18
`focus
`focused 5:21
`
`
`
`Dave
`
`18:5
`
`defer
`
`16:8
`
`deficiencies
`
`deny 20:"
`
`dependent
`
`depends
`desirable
`
`details
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6:25
`
`“:11
`16:6
`
`8:18
`
`determination
`14:13
`
`13:18
`
`determining 19:15
`
`developing 13:2
`discern 13:23
`
`disclose
`
`8:20
`
`discretionary
`discuss
`8:18
`
`discussed 9:13
`
`19:17
`
`dispute
`20:15
`
`13:3 14:19
`
`5:6 6:19 7:7
`District
`11:20 15:9 20:20
`
`
`
`extraordinary 16:25
`
`identifying 19:7
`
`extremely 16:16
`
`ignore
`
`17:7,10
`
`
`
`imagine
`
`18:10
`
`17:17
`important
`inconsistencies
`
`7:7
`
`litigation 9:5 12:17
`lot
`18:22
`
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`
`
`1 9 : 17
`
`items
`
` J
`
`JUDGE
`
`5:13 7:23 10:4
`
`
`
`11:25 15:4,18 16:3,8
`
`18:3 19:23 20:8
`justice 14:17
`
` K k
`
`ind 13:7 14:20
`
`18:12,21
`
` L
`
`language
`
`6:25 9:22
`
`13:3
`larger
`limitation
`17:11
`
`9:12,16,19
`
`limitations
`
`8:21
`
`12:5,12 17:7,23
`limited 7:19
`
`
`
`document
`19:9
`
`DRI
`
`19:15
`
`15:19,21
`
`grant
`
`5:22
`
`groove
`
`group
`
`11:12
`
` 6:
`
`10
`
`guess
`
`8:
`
`3
`
` H 1
` E 8
`
`e-mail
`
`:13 12:3
`
`earlier 19:5,11
`
`encourage
`
`12:22
`
`12:22
`engage
`entire 9:15 18:1
`
`
`
`everybody's
`exact
`5:15
`
`°
`
`exhibit
`
`9:9 1
`
`exhibits
`
`exists
`
`'7:
`
`6:‘5
`6:24
`explicit
`14:12 15:13
`extent
`18:9 19:6
`
`happy
`hear
`
`6:5
`
`10:5
`
`hold 20:3
`
`Honor 5:12,25 8:9
`
`‘0:‘3,19 15:1? 16:2,
`
`
`‘3 ‘8:2
`hope
`14:23
`
`Hrycyszyn
`21 16:13
`
`
`8:6,8 10:9,
`
`
`
`identified 13:6
`
`24
`
`

`

`25
`
` R r
`
`aised 8:13 10:21
`14:19
`
`rare
`
`16:16
`
`
`
`reading 19:22
`reason
`6:21 10:2
`
`reasonable
`13:24
`
`12:24
`
`reasoning 6:4
`reasons
`19:19
`
`recess
`
`20:6
`
`
`
`recited 9:16
`
`
`19:17
`recognize
`
`record 10:7,11,18
`
`15:23 18:13, 21 20:25
`reference
`6:15
`
`referred 9:7 1
`14: 20
`
`regard 12:19
`related 6: 7 7:
`
`6
`
`relevant
`
`14:22 17:17
`
`18:15,23,24 19:5,6
`
`rely 8:20
`
` 0 7
`
`Proceedings
`
`December 19, 2017
`
`Petitioner's
`
`7:25
`
`20:12,17
`Petitioners
`18: 18
`
`
`
`14:23
`
`9:6,7 14:25
`petitions
`
`13:22
`play 12:19
`
`
`14:10
`7:16
`
`point
`16:15
`
`pointing
`
`11:4
`
`points
`12:14
`
`5:8,16 10:21
`
`
`6:24 11:1
`
`
`
`
`
`populated 18:1
`
`:10,
`6:1.1
`portions
`14 20 9: 14, 20 11:5,
`13
`
`
`
`position 5: 24 6: 22
`1 7, 9, 22, 23 20: 18,
`22,23
`
`positions
`20:2,19
`
`5:4 11:18
`
`potentially 13:7
`18:14,22
`
`prefer
`
`7:24
`
` M 7
`
`
`:2 12:
`
`
`
`
`
`make
`
`makes
`
`making
`
`7:18 1
`
`1.3:18
`
`
`
`marginally 1.9:
`matter
`16:22
`
`mention
`
`10: 1.3
`
`minutes
`
`20: 5
`
`
`
`mischaracterizing
`10:22
`
`POPR
`
`myriad
`
`12:18
`
` N 1
`
`narrow 6:
`
`7 7:4 11:23
`
`narrowly
`
` O
`
`
`11:15
`
`
`
`replies
`23
`
`14:11 16:16,
`
`reply 5: 21, 23 8: 16
`9: 2 10: 3 12: 8 13:11
`
`4:14 15: 3 16: 19
`17:12,24 20:12
`
`
`
`
`
`5:20 7:5 8:13
`request
`19:16 20:12
`
`requesting 16:23
`
`requires
`
`9:23
`
`requiring 7:9,13,19
`research 16:18
`
`
`
`9:11,12
`
`15:2 16:11
`
`respect
`
`response
`19:2
`
`rest
`
`9:1
`
`
`
`review
`
`
`
`
`series
`
`short
`
`15:7,17 17:14
`20:6
`
`show 6:20 8:25 17:4
`
`14:15
`showing
`side
`6:12 7:15,21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB'
`
`11:
`put
`20:2
`
`
`question 8:3 15:5
`16:9
`
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`
`
`preliminary 15:2
`18:25
`
`prepared
`
`present
`
`primary
`
`8:17
`
`8:15
`
`6:20
`
`prior
`
`5:23 11:24 19:9
`
`5: 1 6: 1, 6
`proceedings
`
`7:1 8:1 9:
`10:
`11:1 12:1
`°
`14:1 15:1
`.
`18:1 19 1
`
`13:17,24
`
`proper
`
`11:22
`
`prove
`
`
`provided 6:9 10:
`24,25
`PTAB
`6:
`
`overly 7:4
`Owner
`5: 3 6: 17, 23
`7: 12, 24 8: 6, 9, 22
`
`10: 5 11:16 13: 5
`
`
`
`
`
`16:10,1518:10,25
`19:7 20:18
`
`owner's
`
`15:2 20:22
`
` P
`
`13:20 14:6,8
`
`10:
`
`pages
`Panel
`
`part
`
`parties
`
`party
`
`20:4,9
`11 18:17
`
`
`4.8
`
`5:2 6:1.7,23
`patent
`7:12, 24 8: 6, 9, 22
`
`10: 5 11:16 13: 5
`
`
`14: 25 16:10,15
`
`18:10, 25 19:6 20:18,
`22
`
`percent
`
`16:19
`
`permitted 11:21
`
`
`
`petition 10:12,16,24,
`25 11:9 13:9 17:3,
`22, 25
`
`8:13,24
`Petitioner
`9: 3 __0:6 14:2 15:8
`
`16:21 17:2,6,15 18:6
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`9:21
`
`17:5
`
`wrong
`
`17:2
`
`Proceedings
`
`December 19, 2017
`
`26
`
`similarly
`18:1
`
`simply
`
`19:1
`
`single
`
`speak
`
`20:1
`
`8:4,
`
`spoken
`standard 13:1
`5:10 6:
`
`start
`
`statements
`
`5:
`
`submit
`
`substance
`
`:17
`
`15:8 1
`
`5:1
`suggesting 18:20
`surface
`7:10 11:6,14
`
`
`
`
`surfaces 6:‘2,‘3
`7:15,21,22 9:21,23
`
` T
`
`
`
`taking 20:19,23
`term 6:8,18 7:9,13
`terms
`16:20
`
`things
`
`18:22
`
`17:19
`thought
`time
`8:2 9:510:18
`
`today 5:9 6:21 14:20
`
`
`
`treating 16:22
`TSMC
`6:14 9:7,12,18
`10:15 11:8
`
` U u
`
`nderstand 19:25
`
`20:17,21
`
`unnecessarily 5:17
`
`urges
`
`11:17
`
`urging 7:12
`
` V v
`
`ersus
`
`5:4
`
`view 14:2
`
` W w
`
`all
`
`17:5
`
`wanted
`
`16:15
`
`warranted 1
`
`
`
`words
`
`9:15
`
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`
`(877) 479—2484
`
`26
`
`