PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC., )
`Petitioner, )
`) IPR2018-00044
`)
`vs.
`)
`VILOX TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`) Patent No.
`Patent Owner.
`______________________________) 7,302,423
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL
`January 9, 2019
`
`REPORTED BY: CARRIE LAMONTAGNE, CSR No. 13393
`JOB NO. 153804
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC., )
`Petitioner, )
`) IPR2018-00044
`)
`vs.
`)
`VILOX TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`) Patent No.
`Patent Owner.
`______________________________) 7,302,423
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL
`January 9, 2019
`
`REPORTED BY: CARRIE LAMONTAGNE, CSR No. 13393
`JOB NO. 153804
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`
`Page 2
`
`January 9, 2019
`3:01 p.m.
`
`PTAB conference call, held before
`Administrative Patent Judges Hamann, Medley, and
`Weinschenk, before Carrie LaMontagne, a certified
`shorthand reporter for the State of California.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` HAYNES BOONE
` Attorneys for Petitioner
`2505 North Plano Road
`Richardson, Texas 75082
` BY: DAVID O'DELL, ESQ.
`
` LAW OFFICE OF JOHN HARROP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
`440 Belmont Bay Drive
`Woodbridge, Virginia 22320
` BY: JOHN HARROP, ESQ.
`CECIL KEY, ESQ.
`JAY KESAN, ESQ.
`
`Also Appearing Jonathan R.K. Stroud, Esq., Unified
`Patents
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`JUDGE HAMANN: Good afternoon. This call
`is for IPR2018-00044. Unified Patents Inc. v. Vilox
`Technologies LLC. I'm Judge Hamann. On line with
`me are Judges Medley and Weinschenk.
` If counsel for Petitioner could please identify
`who is on the line for Petitioner.
`MR. O'DELL: Yes. This is David O'Dell
`for Petitioner.
`JUDGE HAMANN: And if counsel for Patent
`Owner could identify who's on the line for the
`Patent Owner.
`MR. HARROP: Yes, sir. This is
`John Harrop for Patent Owner.
`MR. KEY: And Cecil Key for the Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
`MR. STROUD: Your honor, Jonathan Stroud
`for Petitioner is on the line as well.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Great.
`MR. HARROP: Your Honor, the call will be
`transcribed.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you. That was my
`question. So there is a court reporter?
`MR. HARROP: Yes, sir.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`JUDGE HAMANN: Once that transcript is
`available, if we could -- we request that be
`submitted, filed maybe under seal, depending on
`what's said today. I guess that's a bookkeeping
`thing we can put behind us.
` Unless there's no other bookkeeping, we're
`here, my understanding is at the request of Patent
`Owner for this call. So Patent Owner you can begin.
`MR. HARROP: Yes, your Honor. During this
`call Patent Owner will present evidence that we
`believe will justify further discovery as to the
`real parties of interest in this IPR. We're also
`going to discuss how our facts differ from those in
`recent RPI challenges, including Applications in
`Internet Time versus RPX and in the institution
`decision in IPR2018-00883, Unified Patents versus
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC.
` Specifically, we'll show evidence that at least
`one and possibly more of Unified Patent's members
`were at the time of filing of the petition in this
`case beneficiaries and had a pre-existing
`established relationship with Unified Patents.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Mr. Harrop.
`MR. HARROP: Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`JUDGE HAMANN: I promised I wouldn't
`interrupt much. I want to help focus, I think, some
`of the inquiries we have, certainly, as you present.
`One of them is -- I want to be real clear exactly
`what Patent Owners are seeking, number one. And
`number two, I believe there was a statement in an
`e-mail along the lines of Patent Owner became aware
`of certain evidence. And really the timing of all
`of that is going to be important too. So we
`definitely want an understanding of when the Patent
`Owner became aware and then, to be frank, of what
`Patent Owner asserts.
` With that sort of as background, please
`continue.
`
`MR. HARROP: Yes, your Honors. We will
`show that at least Salseforce, which is one of
`Unified's patent members which had a pre-existing
`relationship with Unified Patents at the time of
`filing this IPR would benefit from the filing of the
`IPR, and we'll also show that Patent Owner and
`Salseforce were during that same time period engaged
`in extended license negotiations concerning the
`Vilox patent portfolio.
` As we stated during the oral hearing on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`December 11, Patent Owner became aware of additional
`facts that raised questions about the real parties
`in interest. And we became aware of those facts on
`September 4, 2018. We'll go into some discussion of
`that in a minute.
` Subsequently, and several months into the
`proceedings, Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed to
`voluntary discovery. We also mentioned that during
`the oral hearing. And we got the results of that
`voluntary discovery on December 5, too late to brief
`anything to the panel.
` The discovery request that we received did not
`address fully and fulsomely all of our discovery
`requests and, furthermore, raised additional
`questions that we think merit further discovery. So
`basically we feel that Patent Owner is entitled to
`discovery as to the real parties in interest in this
`case, including Salseforce and any other similarly
`situated members.
` As we stated during oral hearing, we don't
`anticipate this is going to affect the outcome of
`the final decision or the timing of the final
`decision. We believe that all additional discovery
`that we request can be completed and briefed to the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`panel well in advance of the anticipated decision
`date.
` To explain the timing of some of these events,
`I'd like to bring on our Patent Owner's co-counsel
`Cecil Key who will walk you through the relevant
`events. Cecil, if you would step up, please.
`MR. KEY: Thank you, your Honors. I think
`I'll be brief here. Just to give a little
`background.
` In the fall of 2016 I was engaged by the Patent
`Owner to have a non-litigation -- or outside
`litigation license discussion with Salseforce and we
`began that with some preliminaries in the fall of
`2016. Those discussions became more robust in 2017.
`But in 2017 the sense of what happened was we had
`this pattern of we would have a discussion with
`Salseforce that would be followed by correspondence,
`unsolicited correspondence from a representative
`from Unified Patents, for example.
` We had a call with Salseforce on January 11 or
`so of 2017. Within a couple weeks we had the first
`unsolicited e-mail from someone named Don Moreno of
`Unified Patents. We moved forward. We had a
`meeting with Salseforce in February. That was an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`exchange of correspondence. Subsequently, in March,
`we had three e-mails from Unified Patents. Then we
`had another in-person meeting with Salseforce in
`June followed by that -- that led to two e-mails
`from another person from Unified Patents in August,
`and then in the very early days of October the IPR
`was filed.
` As to the correspondence from Unified, I think
`largely the feeling was -- maybe it was misdirected.
`It wasn't clear that Vilox actually would fall into
`the category of whatever we understood Unified did,
`but nevertheless -- and I think that position may
`have actually been expressed to Unified very early
`on in the proceedings, saying are you sure you have
`the right guy, essentially. We moved forward with
`the IPR.
` Then in September of 2018, September 4, I
`believe it was, as Mr. Harrop mentioned, we learned
`that Mr. Stroud of Unified had stated that Vilox
`really wasn't the type of company that falls within
`their interest or their purview. And that seemed to
`be a little bit strange and kind of raised the
`question of why we're here. And I think that's what
`triggered the thought that tied everything together,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`that correspondence and that pattern throughout
`2017; that statement raised the concern that perhaps
`this has not just been a unilateral decision by
`Unified to move forward consistent with whatever
`their regular business model would be and that's
`when the discussions led by Mr. Harrop and Unified
`about the further discovery -- and, of course, at
`that point was right in the shadow of the
`Applications in Time decision from the federal
`circuit.
` So all of that led to the timing is the reason
`that this was not brought before the panel's
`attention before the fall or -- and I think actually
`there was some filings, as I recall, about a
`potential seeking of discovery, but that was pulled
`back because the parties agreed to pursue the
`voluntary discovery route. And the rest of that
`sort of timing is as Mr. Harrop has laid out as to
`when responses were received, et cetera, et cetera.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Mr. Key, forgive me, was
`that September 4th or the 24th?
`MR. KEY: Excuse me. That may be the
`
`24th.
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: September 24th is when that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`
`occurred?
`
`MR. HARROP: No, it was September 4th.
`This was John Harrop.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. And just to be
`clear, there was an alleged statement by Unified
`Patents, I think you said Mr. Stroud.
` What was the form of that statement? I'm just
`trying to understand that a little bit more.
`MR. KEY: I believe it was a comment made
`to an unrelated third party but one with whom I
`think the Patent Owner has worked before. And I
`don't know what the context was in which they were
`having the discussion, but it was -- the person's
`name I can tell you. His name was
`, and
`I have also done work with Mr.
`. And he
`conveyed to me that they had the conversation where
`Mr. Stroud said if they had known that Vilox was an
`operating company or something to that effect, then
`it would not have brought the IPR.
` I relayed that to Mr. Harrop and there was
`subsequent conversations as well. I believe -- as I
`understand it, I believe that there's not any
`dispute that that statement was actually made.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. Mr. Harrop, anything
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`further as to supporting facts or evidence
`underlying, I guess, the Patent Owner's belief there
`should be additional discovery?
`MR. HARROP: A few other things, your
`Honors. First, on September 6 I called Mr. Stroud
`myself and confirmed the gist of the conversation
`that he had with
` on September 4th. Then
`I had an in-person discussion with a couple other
`attorneys representing petitioner on -- I believe it
`was September 14 or September 15 at a deposition of
`our expert Dr. Chu and mentioned that we would be
`seeking additional discovery because of some issues
`that were raised concerning the possibility that
`Salseforce might be a real party in interest.
` Those two attorneys asked me to table that
`discussion, and then I got into an exchange with
`Mr. O'Dell who's on the call now, who also
`represents Petitioner. And on September 28 I sent
`a -- not very long, about a one-page e-mail to the
`board asking for additional discovery and I laid out
`some of these facts. I believe you do have a copy
`of that e-mail, although it's certainly not of
`record.
` Mr. O'Dell, on that same day, asked me if we
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`could proceed with voluntary discovery, which seemed
`eminently reasonable to me, so I agreed with
`Mr. O'Dell to do that. And then Mr. O'Dell or
`Petitioner wanted to have discovery covered by a
`protective order, which was okay with Patent Owner.
`We went through the process of getting a protective
`order in place, and then I presented our discovery
`request on November 9 and they were answered on
`December 5, as I mentioned before.
` The one thing that I found -- or there were
`several things that I found striking in those
`discovery requests. First, there were seven
`e-mails, the e-mails that Mr. Key alluded to that
`took place between various employees of Unified
`Patents. And Mr. Ambwani -- I may be mispronouncing
`his name, A-D-N-W-A-N-I [sic], something like
`that -- was the chief operating officer, and one of
`the cofounders of Unified Patents was copied on
`every one of those e-mails. Every one of those
`e-mails mentioned Vilox Technologies specifically
`and there were questions in those things about
`seeking a license with Unified.
` We did not respond to any of those e-mails --
`or Mr. Key did not respond to any of these e-mails
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`and that's why -- I think one of the reasons why we
`continued to get those e-mails. Two of the e-mails,
`the ones in August came from a woman named Bante --
`I forget her first name -- who is a vice president
`of operations of Unified Patents.
` So there was fairly consistent communication
`between Unified and Mr. Key and other third
`parties -- Mr. Key was not the only person copied on
`those e-mails -- about Vilox taking the license, and
`an officer of Unified Patents was aware of it. So I
`think it would have been obvious that they should
`have produced those e-mails to us during the
`discovery, but they chose not to do for whatever
`reason. I don't know. But it certainly raises the
`question in my mind, were they trying to hide the
`existence of those e-mails thinking we did not know
`about them or maybe there were other documents that
`they did not produce.
` In any event, the discovery that we received
`from Unified Patents
`
` also raises
`additional questions because one of the documents,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
` and that Unified never gets
`involved in any direct negotiations or discussions
`with its members.
` The pattern of e-mails that we saw from
`Unified, the fact that they did not produce those
`e-mails to us when they could have and should have
`and the additional comments in the discovery that
`they did produce makes, I think, a pretty compelling
`case for the fact that Salseforce likely was a real
`party in interest. Salesforce was a member and had
`a relationship with Unified Patents, which is one of
`the prongs of Applications in Internet Time. And
`Salesforce would certainly stand to benefit from an
`IPR filed by Unified Patents in this particular
`case, which is a second prong of Applications in
`Internet Time.
` So I think when you bundle all that together,
`you know, we produced enough evidence to the panel
`that I think it's appropriate that we be given the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5 6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`opportunity to get additional discovery from Unified
`Patents at the direction of the panel because on a
`voluntary basis, Unified did not produce adequate
`discovery. That's our basic request.
` Again, I'll reiterate, we don't expect this to
`have any impact on the final decision, either the
`merits or the timing of that decision. And we will
`cooperate in any way with Petitioner's counsel to
`get that discovery done.
` One of the discovery requests that we
`specifically want is to have the opportunity to do a
`deposition of some officer of Unified Patents to
`talk about exactly what was going on between Unified
`and Cecil Key, why they were communicating with him
`in that whole string of events. And I think I've
`said enough on that.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Let me, Mr. Harrop, just
`clarify two quick things. One, Salesforce has not
`been sued at this point -- it hasn't been sued
`before this patent, correct?
`MR. HARROP: That's correct. We only --
`this goes back a long ways, but Mr. Key had a
`conversation with Salesforce sometime ago -- he can
`relate this to you -- wherein attorneys from
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`Salesforce, in-house attorneys suggested if there
`were ever an issue that came up with licensing a
`patent that they, Salesforce would prefer that the
`outside -- the attorneys for the Patent Owner
`communicate directly with Salesforce's attorneys to
`try to do things on a non-litigation basis.
` That's really why Mr. Key was brought in to
`talk to Salesforce because he had this relationship
`with Salesforce in the past. And that was a path we
`were pursuing. We were trying to get a
`non-litigation license from Salesforce.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. I understand,
`Mr. Harrop. Let me clarify also, too, and I think
`you've clarified, but I want to make it abundantly
`clear. Patent Owner is seeking additional discovery
`supposedly relating to RPIs for future aspects in
`estoppel, and Patent Owner is not in some way
`putting forward that there should be some type of
`bar to the current proceeding; is that correct?
`MR. HARROP: That is correct, your Honor.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. Mr. O'Dell.
`MR. O'DELL: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
`There's a few things I'd like to emphasize. First
`of all, let's start in a time-wise order. There's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`communications in the fall of 2016 and through 2017,
`supposedly -- I haven't seen many of these
`communications -- but between Cecil Key, who
`represents Vilox and is on the call today, and
`someone at Unified about licensing. So 2016/2017
`before the IPR was filed.
` Then the other event that Vilox brings to our
`attention is allegedly that on September 4th,
`Mr. Stroud, who's also on this phone call who is a
`representative for unified, said something to a
`person,
`, that we usually don't --
`Unified doesn't file IPRs against companies like
`Vilox or something to that effect.
` Let's look at what's being asked here. For the
`first time of record the Patent Owner is trying to
`bring up the issue of RPI. Potentially, you would
`say that they asked for it in the oral hearing, that
`that was the first time of record but either that
`time or this time right now.
` So we're talking about RPI. Now, discovery
`concluded back on October 22. So under 3742.5(c)3
`it talks about excusing late actions. And we need
`to -- the Patent Owner needs to show good cause
`and/or an interest of justice. So why so late?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`This case is almost done. We've had the oral
`hearing. We're expecting [indiscernible] in any
`week now.
` Why -- certainly, it's not the 2016 and '17
`e-mails between Unified and Mr. Key because they've
`known about those, obviously, since 2016 or 2017.
`Is it -- what I hear Vilox saying is that this
`September 4, 2018, statement of Mr. Stroud of
`Unified Patents, that -- that the extent of the
`statement is we don't normally file IPRs against
`companies like Vilox, that that has made all this --
`that is the link. That's the good cause that makes
`Vilox think that there's an RPI issue. Lastly,
`Vilox has said they -- their late learning of the
`AIT versus RPX decision which came out in July of
`last year.
` I don't believe any of these are even close to
`showing good cause for a late action to be excused.
`And even if the September 4, 2018, alleged statement
`of Jonathan Stroud is correct, at least that was in
`the middle of discovery and that would have been a
`good time to bring this up, but there was still
`nothing of record about RPI in the middle of
`discovery.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
` And lastly, I would like to bring to the
`board's attention to an IPR order. This is for IPR
`number 2018-00139, Paper 17. I'm looking at page 7.
`In this case the Patent Owner brought up the RPI
`during discovery but near the end, near the Patent
`Owner response time frame. And the board in that
`case refused to allow the -- refused to grant a
`motion for discovery relating to RPI saying it was
`not -- it was not timely filed, the request was not
`timely made, and also cited 37 CFR 42.5(c)3, that
`the Patent Owner had not met this ruling of late
`action which can be excused by good cause or an
`interest of justice.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Mr. O'Dell, two questions I
`want to clarify to make sure I understand, I think
`the party's positions.
` Does Petitioner dispute that this September 4th
`statement by Mr. Stroud occurred? I think as you
`characterized -- it's a fine characterization, but
`you said allegedly. So I'm just trying to
`understand whether there's a dispute whether that
`occurred.
`
`MR. STROUD: This is Jonathan Stroud. I
`don't want to be in a position to testify on a call
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`with a transcript, obviously. This is uncomfortable
`since this is the first time we're hearing a lot of
`these arguments and a lot of these statements. But
`I have already heard this Patent Owner dispute that
`that conversation happened the way that he's
`indicating that it did.
`
`, Mr.
`, contacted me unapproached.
`He works for a company called IP Val -- or IP
`Valuation that does patent monetization and
`represents nonpracticing entities. He brought up
`Vilox, and he indicated to me that Vilox was not --
`that it was not a nonpracticing entity. That is
`what happened.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`MR. STROUD: John -- sorry. Go ahead.
`JUDGE HAMANN: This is Judge Hamann
`speaking. So it's sufficient to say that whether or
`not the statement occurred as characterized by
`Patent Owner is disputed.
` Is that fair?
`MR. STROUD: Yes, that is correct.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. The other question I
`have is relating to when Patent Owner brought this
`up, and I just want to clarify. I think there was
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`an -- you know, of record is a phrase, Mr. O'Dell, I
`think that you used a few times.
` There was an e-mail, I believe at one point it
`seems like, seeking potentially the board's help,
`but then the parties came to some arrangement.
`There's a dispute whether that was completed to
`whatever may have been agreed upon, but there was at
`least some indication at some point before the
`hearing or today.
` Is that fair, or how would you characterize
`that e-mail request that I think Patent Owner said
`happened in September? Mr. O'Dell, how would you
`characterize that, if at all, or if I've just got it
`incorrect?
`
`MR. O'DELL: There was, I believe in
`September -- I don't have the date for that, but I
`have November 9 -- there was an e-mail, and then
`November 9 the Patent Owner, John Harrop, sent a
`discovery request to Unified. At the time --
`September, thereabout, the e-mail was sent. We
`talked and we just asked, What do you want? And
`then a month and a half later, John, Mr. Harrop sent
`us a request of what they want. So the request for
`what they -- discovery was received November 9.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. If there's nothing
`further from Petitioner, let's -- before I confer
`with my colleagues, Mr. Harrop, I'll give you a
`chance to reply to that.
`MR. HARROP: Yes, your Honor. With
`respect to the e-mail that we sent -- the Patent
`Owner sent to the board -- what was sent, as I
`recall on September 28, laid out most of these facts
`as we understood them at the time. And on the same
`day Mr. O'Dell got in touch with me and asked if
`Patent Owner would agree to voluntary discovery, as
`I mentioned just a few minutes ago.
` We agreed to that, but the Petitioner wanted a
`protective order in place first. So we waited some
`amount of time which ate into our discovery period,
`in fact, took us right to the end of the discovery,
`before we got to the protective order.
` We didn't feel we should be submitting
`discovery requests until we got the protective order
`in place. Once we got that in place, I think we
`were pretty timely getting the discovery request out
`to the Petitioner. And after that we did get the
`results.
` As far as the conversation with Mr.
`
` and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`Mr. Stroud, of course, this is all hearsay on my
`part. But the relevant argument that we are putting
`forward to the board is that it was Mr. Stroud who
`said had he known that Vilox Technologies was an
`operating company or associated with an operating
`company, he would not have brought the IPR.
` And it's really irrelevant in my mind who
`raised the issue about Vilox Technologies in that it
`actually was and still is, for that matter, an
`operating company. It's got headquarters in
`Louisville, Kentucky, and has been there for about
`12 years or so. So Mr. Stroud's characterization of
`who said what may be accurate, but he left off the
`part where he said we would not have brought that
`conversation, and I think that is what we're talking
`about.
` Now, Mr. O'Dell mentioned Applications in
`Internet Time coming out in July; yes, they did.
`Once we read through the decision on Applications in
`Internet Time, we realized that perhaps the rules on
`RPI would loosen a little bit. But then when we got
`the additional facts in early September, we
`immediately brought that face to face -- I mentioned
`it to Petitioner's attorneys, they stalled for a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`while, rightly or wrongly. I'm not characterizing
`it in any negative way. But I didn't get back with
`Mr. O'Dell until the end of September, and that's
`when we went through this attempt to get the
`discovery.
` The other thing I want to emphasize that
`differs from this IPR that Mr. O'Dell brought up,
`00139. In our case we had an ongoing relationship
`with Salesforce and Petitioner had an ongoing
`relationship with Salesforce and Salesforce would
`benefit from the IPR, clearly. And the voluntary
`discovery clearly failed to produce seven documents
`that we have in our possession. And there's no
`answer for that.
` Mr. O'Dell has not addressed that, nor has
`Mr. Stroud. Why did we not get those documents? I
`think there's a clear difference between our
`situation in IPR 44 and all the other IPRs that
`Unified has been involved with where a real party in
`interest has been brought up. Thank you, your
`Honors.
`
`MR. STROUD: If I may address that just
`shortly because I believe that Mr. O'Dell did.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Very briefly.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`MR. STROUD: Sure. We have not seen those
`communications that he's talking about. But if what
`he's saying today is true -- and this is the first
`time we've heard about it -- what he's talking about
`is communications between Unified and Vilox about
`trying to settle the matter prior to being filed.
`
`
`
`MR. HARROP: Your Honors, this is
`John Harrop again. Our discovery request clearly
`stated that we wanted all communications about Vilox
`and any third party. So for whatever reason Unified
`chose not to produce that. They chose to produce
`something else.
`JUDGE HAMANN: If the parties would please
`hold while we confer.
`(Pause in the proceedings.)
`JUDGE HAMANN: This is Judge Hamann
`speaking again. The panel is going to take the
`Patent Owner's request under advisement. The panel,
`again, requests that a copy of the transcript get
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 27
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`filed under seal as soon as is reasonable. Thank
`you for everyone's time.
`MR. HARROP: Thank you, your Honors.
`JUDGE HAMANN: The hearing is -- the call
`is adjourned.
`MR. HARROP: Thank you.
`MR. O'DELL: Thank you.
`(Proceedings adjourned at 3:38 p.m.)
`* * * * *
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`PTAB CONFERENCE CALL - 1/9/19
`REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`Page 28
`
`I, Carrie LaMontagne, Certified Shorthand
`Reporter within and for the State of California,
`License No. 13393, do hereby certify that the
`proceedings were reported by me on January 9, 2019,
`and was thereafter transcribed with computer-aided
`transcription; that the foregoing is a full,
`complete, and true record of said proceedings.
`I further certify that I am not of counsel
`or attorney for either or any of the parties in the
`foregoing proceedings and caption named or in any
`way interested in the outcome of the cause in said
`caption.
`
`IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
`hand and official seal this 11th day of January,
`2019.
`
`____________________________
`CARRIE LAMONTAGNE, CSR
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
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
